Beware Secular Fundamentalists

Very good response! Thought you might enjoy this link, it fits right in with your point:

http://www.audienceoftwo.com/mag.php?art_id=750

I think you are incorrect! Secularism may not be good, but religion is certainly bad! It is much safer to depend on ones identity with being a common member of the species than reliance on a God's prietsts to set the rules of behavior! Over and over again, religion, God, has been used to set people outside the scope of a shared humanity thereby allowing for inhuman acts to be done on such hapless souls! Like Nationalism, Tribalism, and other isms, religionism is a fatal human desease!

"When I was younger I saw things in black and white - now all I see is a sad, hazy grey."

Charles wrote:

"I have many friends of divergent faith and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by God is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals."

Charles,

I have many friends with no faith at all and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by each other is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals.

So god(s) seem to be completely irrelevant to those humanistic ideals.

Bgone wrote:

All religions conform to:
1. Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded.
3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.

---

When you lumped different group together like this you are bounded to be wrong. I can't speak on behalf of all religions be I can say that in the defense of Wicca... We don't

1. Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded.
3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.

---

When you lumped different group together like this you are bounded to be wrong. I can't speak on behalf of all religions be I can say that in the defense of Wicca... We don't

1. Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded.
3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.

---

When you lumped different group together like this you are bounded to be wrong. I can't speak on behalf of all religions but I can say that in the defense of Wicca... We don't
1.Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
Wicca has only one set in stone rule: and it harm none, do as you will. This rule distinguishes Wiccans from other people who called themselves Witches who might practice harmful rituals and magick. It is not a Judgement call of other people and is Limited to our members. In fact, Wiccan do not believe in hell and think everyone goes to the same place. So why would we care what other groups do? We do.. We barely CARE what people within our group, hence, why we added to the rule and DO what you will. In other words, although we share many common beliefs, Wiccan are free to create their own path and their own spiritual "demands".

2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded./3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.
There is no good and evil in Wicca Beliefs. OR Heaven or hell. We do have a Rule called the three-fold law ( closely related Karma). If you think Karma is a punishment and reward system, you just don't understand Karma. Karma actually means Action ( cause and effect). Wiccans and Buddhists are simply being logical when they say that your actions will come back to you. So Wiccans SUGGEST not demand of Ourselves that we only commit actions where the consequences will be helpful to us. This is called Common sense not being a terrorist.

Henry James:

thank you for repeating almost verbatim the definition of religious war I had given in my previous post.

Now that we agree about the definition, let us look at the last 250 years and compare the number of casualties due to true religious wars (according to your definition) to the casualties due to "secular" wars. I claim that the latter outnumber the former by a couple of orders of magnitude (in another thread I made a short list: Napoleonic wars, American civil war, two world wars, Chinese and Russian civil wars in the 20th century, sino-japanese wars, wars in Congo and Rwanda, Iran-Iraq war and so on and so forth.)

The only religion-motivated wars I know of who came even close to any in this list in dimension are the India-Pakistan partition and the Armenian genocide (where religion was only an exacerbating factor). Both of them involve Islam, which is the only one among major world religion in which war does have a theological significance (at least in certain interpretations).

So, if you think I have my head in the sand, I think you are prejudiced by a certain standard narrative of European history common in the US. Religious wars do happen, but religion as a cause of conflict pales in comparison with economic and political motivations, and even with sheer ethnic hatred (which often is camouflaged in religious terms). On the other hand, there are situations in which Christianity did alleviate the effects of war (I know of several episodes in the Italian middle-ages)

Charles: "I have many friends of divergent faith and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by God is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals."

Please consider that the message is so similar because it's inherent in humanity, not sent by God.

Besides, if God sent the message, why not send the same message to everyone, instead of slight variations to people of different religions. This doesn't make sense to me.

Henry,

thanks. I am a great friend of the concept of "fuzzy logic". So, sqeezing my eyes a little bit, it was clear what you meant, ;-) ! I just finished a piece on the meaning of "Play", so I know that everything "is" within a frame of tolerance, never mathematically "correct"!

TYPO above

should have been

"as atheist fundamentalists believe his God *is*

(ie non existent).

That is the worst sentence i ever wrote btw, but it's early in the morning for an old guy like me.

Gerry
I was going to ask your same question.

Prof Balmer's grasp of the concept you point out is *non-existent*, as a-theist fundamentalists (grin) believe his god his.

How did he become a Barnard professor given his sloppy use of oxymoronic concepts?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Thanks and Peace
Don't start any wars now.

Fundamentalist atheism is an oxymoron. One cannot be "fundamentalist" in the belief of the ABSENCE of something: It's just absent, period. "Fundamental" comes from "found". Nobody "founded" atheism. Or maybe I am wrong?

Of course, I personally am a faithful believer in the Holy Reformed Church of the NON-Rabbit-Breeders (NRB). Some people also regard me as a heretic and apostate, since I left the false religion of the NON-Pigeon-Breeders (NPB), who now constantly harass and insult me as being a "fundamentalist". They call me rude, bombastic and intellectually lazy, to mention only a few og the friendlier names they call me!

BTW: How do you become a Columbia professorß?

TO HUMANITY: I've met God and God is a Trinity, a Trinity of Love with a Plan for His creation that one day everyone will be pleased with. I've also met satan and he is not nice at all but can try to come across as mister nice guy, satan is referred to as a deceiver. See you in the Kingdom. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hitchen's is wrong and he is "intellectually" lazy because he abandoned logic for he own brand of zeal.

Bad people doing bad things in the name of religion is no different than bad people doing bad things in the name of country, or clan, or whatever. Bad people do bad things and I can argue that more death has been caused by organized states (country) than by organized religion. The fact that some countries are tied to religion (their own twisted versions mind you) does not mean that the particular faith they say they represent are actually represented.

I am very tired of the argument that because some people, in the name of christianity or islam, or any other faith have done horrific things that my faith is evil or wrong. I have made my lifes journey in studing the scripture of my faith (christianity). I have many friends of divergent faith and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by God is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals. These are tennets of my faith.

Of course people have warped the words of my God to support their own twisted goals. Do you really think the crusades were every about christianity??? Go back and study your history if you do. The reclaimation of the holy lands as it were was a thin veil applied over the economic issues at heart of those wars. Money, titles, power were the real reasons for the wars there.

Of course you have real fanatics that kill themselves and others in the name of religion, but look at who is directing them. It is men/women seeking power, influence etc. They teach these people a warped version of the faith they profess (with them at the center) and use that to control others. Of course, like relegion, it would be nice if people were to seek out the truth themselves. Far to many people rely on others to tell them the "truth". That is the real problem. Ignorance.

Religious scholars that try their best to adhere to their faith and tenets as actually written don't go around killing people. In fact you will find that they go around helping people. Why is that bad, what purpose would it serve to get rid of it. Evil people will just find something else (like nationalism) to twist to their ends.

I don't want to choose between an attack dog and a lapdog.

Posit a polarity. Define the extreme poles as identical; connect in a circle: THEN *SPIN*
Faith makes the world go 'round: Is you G()D or quite the opposite?

Is you G_D or is you quite the opposite?

"Placher contends most of the straw men Hitchens builds up, were issues settled long ago."

really? like the virgin birth? The parting of the Red sea? The resurrection?

A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -

X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .

Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!

As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.

carlo
you write
"In my observation, the latter is so much prevalent over the former as to make the whole notion of religion wars almost empty of meaning."

How bout this definition: wars in which religion is the prime motivating factor, or at least an exacerbating factor in the conflict that led to war.

Of course you don't believe in this phenomenon. You don't see how religious belief could create or contribute to a conflict that led to war. Have you read about any of these conflicts? Do you deny that religion was at least a contributing factor.

And again, this list is JUST from the last 15 years (and you acknowldge while discounting half of them because they were Islamic, as if Islam is not the religion of 1.3 of the world's people.)

Take you hea out of the sand, Carlo. Of course, any half bright person knows the interaction between religion and poloitics is complicated and intertwined. Does that obviate the effect of religion? Only if you are related to Pollyanna.

Henry James:

are you trying to say that whenever there is war between two ethnic groups with different religions that is a religious war? Come on!

A religious war is a war that is motivated by religion, i.e. waged in order to promote one's religion and in hatred of somebody BECAUSE of their religion. If you take away all the examples involving Islam (which I already granted is an exception in this respect), there is nothing left to your list except possibly Northern Ireland, which was not a major war at all, and the Croats kicking out the Serbs. Both are pretty minor episodes in the sequence of human slaughter that has plagued humanity over, say, the last quarter of a millennium.

I also have question for you: how you distinguish between the situations when religion determines politics, and those in which politics uses religion? In my observation, the latter is so much prevalent over the former as to make the whole notion of religion wars almost empty of meaning.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

See my posts above for "on topic" That one was in response to another blogger here.

Since I'm here may as well: Religion is good fer ya,, just like terbackee. You'll find both in the same area of the country. Regulate one, regulate all.

In all fairness to the Mormons, Utah has the lowest cigarette consumption of the 50 states while Kentucky has the highest with both neck and neck for the most religious. Kentucky loses big time because God lives in Salt Lake City. Is there really a connection between God and religion?

Maybe this is WHY Hitchens is correct and just a little more polite than some people.

BGONE,

Your "hoax" webpages are a bit much but the request for FDA regulation of religion was very "on topic" and interesting.

"Maybe religion should be regulated by the FDA? Addictive agents should be kept away from children? The least we can do is tax it until no one can afford it any more like cigarettes."

William Placher has a review of Hitchens book currently online at www.christiancentury.org
Those of you who are serious about this matter should take a look at it. Among other things Placher contends most of the straw men Hitchens builds up, were issues settled long ago.
Google it up

Frederick Vaquer: wrote:

My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.

---

What you are pointing out is the mechanism through which religion is addictive. All addictive agents cause a release of chemicals in the brain that give a sense of well being. The notion of "drunk with power" comes to mind along with Dr Schuller's "Hour of Power."

Maybe religion should be regulated by the FDA? Addictive agents should be kept away from children? The least we can do is tax it until no one can afford it any more like cigarettes.

Carlo
are you, in your tricky literary way, trying to say that Secular Humanists aren't REALLY peace-loving. Or any more so than the rest of the world, which is demonstrably peace-loving.

Of course Quakers are too - look at Richard Nixon.

In our current war,the more religious the American citizen, the more likely they are to trust and support the war aims and lies of the current administration, and our President who consulted a Higher Father before deciding to go to war.

I guess war and peace are not important enough issues for you to address seriously.

Carlo Here are a few of the religious wars in the last 20 years:

• Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims)

• The Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Christians)

• Northern Ireland (Catholics vs. Protestants)

• Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus)

• Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists)

• Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians)

• Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians)

• Ivory Coast (Muslims vs. Christians)

• Lebanon (Muslims vs. Jews)

• Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus)

• The Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechan Muslims)

• September 11 Attacks (Muslims vs. Infidels
does this suffice?

Henry James:

great! I love all these wonderful peace-loving secular humanists. Are you implying that, say, Quakers or Catholics or Methodists or Buddhists have been starting wars left and right? I cannot think of any major war since (at least) the treaty of Westfalia that was started on religious grounds.
And very few even before that. I would grant you that Islam does constitute somewhat of a counter-example, though...

Randall Balmer uses the word fundamentalist as if it was a label well used in reverse: that Hitchens, who argues that there is no god, is also a "fundamentalist." But Hitchens uses a horde of words that strike home because they matter, and he has the rich vocabulary and hefty intellect to advance his thesis. He is very precise with his arguments, but his line is anything but simplistic. I suppose he is saying essentially , "The emperor has no clothes," but in my book, when intellectually challenged, a responder would do better than to hurl epithets of Balmers' kind, and instead, argue Hitchen's points as presented. The burden for Balmer is to prove religious claims that he and other believing types feel are either unassailable or true: these are the real stances of religious fundamentalism.

Secular Humanist Starts War

Wouldn't that be an interesting headline.
And don't show ignorance by calling Stalin and Hitler secular humanists. Look up the definition if you don't know it.

Secular Humanists are NONE of the things that Hitchens lists as characterizing A LARGE NUMBER of religions.

Secular humanism PROMOTES non-violence, rationality, tolerance, anti racism and tribalism and anti bigotry, the opposite of ignorance, and suportive to free inquiry.

Unfortunately there aren't enough of theml. But there are lots, and they are growing.

Religion does largely promote the things that Hitchens lists, sadly.

It doesn't matter what this man thinks.The most important thing is that he prepares to meet The Lord. It is so many like that seem to think that education or an educator will be able to despute the good that is done by people who are involved in some true religion. Men have clay feet and will make mistakes. The true judge of the heart is Jesus Christ and only His opinion is going to make any difference at the time of judgement.

It doesn't matter what this man thinks.The most important thing is that he prepares to meet The Lord. It is so many like that seem to think that education or an educator will be able to despute the good that is done by people who are involved in some true religion. Men have clay feet and will make mistakes. The true judge of the heart is Jesus Christ and only His opinion is going to make any difference at the time of judgement.

Frederick:

right now I am not practicing anything. I am just wasting time posting on this thread. I suspect my endorphines are at a very normal level. I am not feeling any special sense of well-being. Why do I still think that the religious problem is THE crucial human question?

Why is the splash-page headline link labeled "Beware secular humanists" instead of "Beware secular fundamentalists"? The two are quite dissimilar groups...

Why is the splash-page headline link labeled "Beware secular humanists" instead of "Beware secular fundamentalists"? The two are quite dissimilar groups...

I am a secularist, but I believe being a Fundamentalism is not restricted to just being religious, it can be a Fundamental belief in a political system, a country, a race, a sexual preference. Any time the your are fundamentally right and your opponent is fundamentally wrong your are a Fundamentalist.

An easy self test you can take is ask yourself if people who are not "religious /secularist /democrat /republican /communist /black /white /homosexual /straight /feminist /anti-feminist" are wrong. If you feel that way you are a fundamentalist. If you just disagree with some things that people who are ... but agree with other points then you are not a Fundamentalist.

I have read Dawkins and I agree that he is a Scientific/Secularist Fundamentalist. He makes many good points that I agree on about the role of religion, but he also makes many conclusions about religion that I don't agree with.

I have read only parts of Hitchens's book, so I cannot comment much on his claims. But I have read carefully the "God Delusion" (R. Dawkins), "The end of faith" (S. Harris) and "Breaking the spell"(by Dennett).

Dennett's work is worth reading and should not classified with the other two. Although an atheist himself, he does not condemn religions, but calls for a study of religious phenomena so we can deal better with related political and social issues.

Harris is confident that he knows all that's wrong with all religious faith; but his book did not impress me as being a knowledgeable critique of religion. He over-generalizes and exaggerates the case against religion, as does Dawkins in his book.

This does not imply that that their criticisms of the evil and folly of some religions during some periods of their history is false. When they specify the actual guilty parties, Harris and Dawkins make important contributions to the debate regarding the value of religious faith. But their tendency to over-generalize and over-simplify the issues diminishes the value their books could have had.

Balmer's criticism is partly on target.

My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.This dimension of individual being is probably very strongly influened by inherent biological factors. Good, bad or indifferent behaviors though influened by feeling and emotion involve complex cognitive brain functions strongly influenced by cultural forces.
Frederick Vaquer
Pasadena Ca

Dan Duffy:

it sounds like you are weakening Hitchens' statements considerably. He argued that "religion" (whatever that means, see my post above) results in net moral negatives (intolerance, conflicts, ect.) Most of the times. For most people. He seems to know for sure that "religion" does more harm that good and as such should be deprecated.

My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.This dimension of individual being is probably very strongly influened by inherent biological factors. Good, bad or indifferent behaviors though influened by feeling and emotion involve complex cognitive brain functions strongly influenced by cultural forces.
Frederick Vaquer
Pasadena Ca

My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.This dimension of individual being is probably very strongly influened by inherent biological factors. Good, bad or indifferent behaviors though influened by feeling and emotion involves complex cognitive brain functions strongly influenced by cultural forces.
Frederick Vaquer
Pasadena Ca

I think Professor Balmer has misunderstood Mr. Hitchens' argument. There are certainly ambiguities in all religions, because there are ambiguities in all people. 'Secular fundamentalists' as Balmer calls them, argue that religion and religious people are entitled to no honored or privileged treatment because of their religiosity. As an example, the Catholic Pope has no more moral authority than I do in deciding what is a good life. Making moral decisions is hard intellectual work; work best not left to others of questionable motives and authority. Hitchens argument is not that there is no moral ambiguity, but that no person or religion has the market cornered on clarity and they should cease claiming they do.

This article is like every other article in that it really mis-quotes or mis-interprets the latest rash of athiest books.

The gist of the messages these books are sending is not religion = bad; secular = good, it's more along the lines of good people do good things and bad people do bad things but it takes religion for good people to do really bad things.

I think Professor Balmer has misunderstood Mr. Hitchens' argument. There are certainly ambiguities in all religions, because there are ambiguities in all people. 'Secular fundamentalists' as Balmer calls them, argue that religion and religious people are entitled to no honored or privileged treatment because of their religiosity. As an example, the Catholic Pope has no more moral authority than I do in deciding what is a good life. Making moral decisions is hard intellectual work; work best not left to others of questionable motives and authority. Hitchens argument is not that there is no moral ambiguity, but that no person or religion has the market cornered on clarity and they should cease claiming they do.

I think Professor Balmer has misunderstood Mr. Hitchens' argument. There are certainly ambiguities in all religions, because there are ambiguities in all people. 'Secular fundamentalists' as Balmer calls them, argue that religion and religious people are entitled to no honored or privileged treatment because of their religiosity. As an example, the Catholic Pope has no more moral authority than I do in deciding what is a good life. Making moral decisions is hard intellectual work; work best not left to others of questionable motives and authority. Hitchens argument is not that there is no moral ambiguity, but that no person or religion has the market cornered on clarity and they should cease claiming they do.

Doug Barr:

that a non sequitur. You could very well believe in one God who wants you to give your life for those in error rather than persecute them. In fact, you can even believe in one God who chose that course of action for himself.

"No it doesn't and I'll try to simplify. Science is based on theory and theory is defined by a propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Look that up for yourself, you'll see I nearly copied and pasted it from the dictionary."

You miss the point entirely. A scientific theory allows predictions based on it to be made and to be tested. As long as these predictions are verified experimentally the theory is accepted. If there is evidence that does not support the theory it is abandoned. For example, it was once hypothesized that the genetic information was stored in proteins and not in DNA (call it the protein-based theory of molecular genetics if you like). The best scientific evidence now indicates that it is DNA and not protein that is the genetic material. Unless new evidence surfaces to show that DNA is not the genetic material, this scientific "theory" will be accepted.

Religion, on the other hand, has its own theory. That you may go to heaven or hell after you die. One way to test this is to hang over a cliff holding onto a branch and then let go. Any takers?

Doug Barr:

that's a non sequitur. You can believe in one God who believes you should give your life for those who are in error, rather than persecute them. In fact, you can even believe in one God who chose that course of action for himself.

Hitchens has exposed the fact that all Mono-theistic religions - by their very nature - ONE GOD, MY GOD - are intolerant (the source, not necessarily all of the practitioners).

If you truly believe in one God and that all others are in error, and (usually) damned to hell for their apostasy, then it is a very short step indeed towards putting those beliefs into violent action.

While the Enlightenment and other modern movements may have taken the edge off the absolutism of monotheism, the threat will always remain because the intolerant source material for Judaism, Christianity & Islam will always be available to fundamentalists who are looking to put society into full reverse.

Lane:

Are you saying that people of faith are good BECAUSE of their faith? That they engage in poverty relief, feeding the hungry, marching for civil rights or against war, etc BECAUSE of their religious faith? That they wouldn’t do these things if not for their religious faith? How sad that idea is.

----

The money the collect calling themselves "charitable" goes into their business of fleecing the lame brains, stained glass, TV stations etc.

Let me rub it in, salt in your wound. Your tax dollars goes indirectly to them de facto tithing. Only churches own real estate in the USA. Everyone else, businesses and individuals only rent from the government. The rent is called property taxes. Only the church is exempt. And then there is the tax deduction for "gifts to God." That's indirect tithing. Congratulations on your financial contribution to the cause of faith.

The Bush gang granted them in the neighborhood of 5 billion of Katrina relief money, (under the flag of charity). That's direct tithing.

The good news is the Bible is a proved hoax. http://www.hoax-buster.org has the archaeological roots, found Moses for sure and maybe Jesus in the written archaeological record. That needs to be made public to reveal religion for what it really is, a con game that's actually unlawful in every state and territory in the union.

The other aspect of the politicization of politics is that both religion and the government present everything as all-or-nothing choices with no chance of compromise and never a third option.

So when the churches tell people "Either you embrace this noxious political policy or you are an atheist," many people will say "OK, then I guess I am an atheist."

It is this all-or-nothing fundamentalism that creates atheists. Atheism is not the result of some secular slippery slope, it is the direct result of fundamentalism. The fact that fundies aim for an insulated and paranoid world view that blames outsiders means that their self-destructive cycle will continue.

Mr. EP Thorn (if that is your real name) said,
"Uh... this shows a determined ignorance of science. Science does NOT demand leaps of faith- in fact, it prohibits them. Go read a real book on science, not a creationist pamphlet. The very cornerstone of science is questioning conclusions based on evidence."

No it doesn't and I'll try to simplify. Science is based on theory and theory is defined by a propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Look that up for yourself, you'll see I nearly copied and pasted it from the dictionary.

In quantum mechanics, evidence can be reproduced on an atom when an action is applied to cause it to behave in a particular manner. What is going on within the atom? No one knows, as there IS NO way to know. So a theory is developed to assist in the explanation. That theory is then tested and used as basis for further theories; so on and so forth. This system works very well as a process for exploration. But as defined, a scientific theory is not fact, when it becomes fact, it is no longer a theory.

Well, religious people do the same thing. They see evidence of (since you bought it up) creation. No one has no way of really knowing what occurred so they assign their own explanations. That is what faith is, belief without fact. When a belief becomes fact, it is no longer faith.

Hmm, what else behaves way...scientific theory!!!

(bytheby, that really burns me with the bible-thumbers, they claim the bible is fact. If that is so, what is the purpose of faith? Isn't that the point, faith? it seems they locked themselves out of the figurative room there)

Why does it make you so angry to think that science, religion (and philosophy) postulate identically? No need to react so strongly. Practice thinking beyond your own nose now and again, makes the day brighter.

Scientists don't stop at what they know as 'fact.' They go well beyond that. Sometimes for great good and sometimes, not so good. A religionist person does the same. They go beyond what they know as facts, sometimes for good and sometimes, not so good.

As for myself, creationism is a myth that has nice place in literature. As a basis for science or philosophical study, it is worthless.

As far as nilihism making one grumpy. I stand by my observation. You seem mighty angry yourself, so hence, my no-fun-at-parties theory is no longer theory, it has become fact.

Please don't make assumptions about anyone. It makes your point less valid & less interesting.

Regards, Anonymous (not my real name)

Do you really think that the implementation of Dominion Theology aka Christian Reconstructionism as American legal policy will result in anything but a persecution of the American populace en masse?

"If you don't like religion, fine. Go to science. Both demand leaps in faith. Either accept scientific theory or accept a religious tenet, same thing. Believe in something, because nihilism makes you grumpy and you won't be invited to fun parties."

Really now. There is quite a difference between science and religion. Religion makes predictions that cannot be tested. Science makes predictions that can be tested. I would suggest that if there is any leap in faith, it is religion since it is based on myth and a dependence on the supernatural. I suggest you hang over a cliff holding onto a branch. If you believe in a resurrection, let go the branch. I dare you.

Mr. Balmer,

So are you saying that God and religion are a nuanced grey area? That isn’t what the 1st commandment says. It’s pretty black and white. John 14:6? That is pretty damn black and white. Where is the grey area? People are killing and being killed today, right now- because of religion. Why are the Muslims so upset? Because they’ve been fending off the Christians for thousands of years, watched their families slaughtered in the name of Jesus Christ and to a certain extent, since Mr. Bush has ordained himself president, it continues today. The Catholic Church harbors child molesters and is historically guilty of thousands of murders. Here in the US we have that great group of televangelists that scam retirees and lonely people for their last dollar encouraging them to "sow their seed of prosperity with God." I think you could give them better advice directing them to the nearest lottery agent. At least they'd have a chance at something. God is not an ATM, right?

Just as many who’ve done good works in the name of religion, your hospital examples, just as many if not more has be done just because without the attachment. I bought a hungry person a meal today and did not say that it came from God or any Christian derivative because it didn't. They were hungry and I could help because I can work so I earned that money and learned how to perform the job that I have. You can say that I am "blessed" but by that argument, the hungry gentleman is cursed and I thought we were all equal in God's eyes... Unless you're a Mormon or Jewish. Then you're superior to everyone else or one of God's chosen people. What about the rest of us? Didn't Jesus just give us all salvation? Well then all Jews are going to Hell because they don't by the Jesus story. They do say he was a cool dude in sandals so God forbid we suggest all Jews are going to burn in Hell.

I was baptized in a Southern Baptist Church that fired the pastor that dunked me because he couldn’t wrap up a sermon before noon making everyone late for kick off at 1pm.

Have your religion and feel very good about it but stay out of my life and my government. If I want to dance in chicken blood naked under the moon I will. If I want to speak out about it I will. Stop trying to censor the books, movies and TV shows that I want to see because there is just as much murder, hate and rape in the Bible. "We must protect the children!!" Well, be a parent, turn off the TV and get involved in their lives. Don't make me suffer because you can't control what your children read, see or watch.

Pat Robertson, leader of whatever gaggle of weak minded believers encouraging the US Government to assassinate a seated head of state. Wow. Religion is cool man!! Jesse Ventura was spot on

What you are saying is that the super-ego cannot differentiate between the highest patriotic power (the commander and chief, provided he identifies himself with the religion) and the highest religious power, i.e. Jehovah. Right on.

Lane:

who said that? Personally I have no doubt that you can be good without religious faith. But I do not think you can give ME (or your children, or society at large) any REASON why we should be good.

PS By "reason" I do not mean fear of hell. I mean a comprehensive, non-sentimental understanding of what it means to be human and what is the goal of my existence, if any.

Are you saying that people of faith are good BECAUSE of their faith? That they engage in poverty relief, feeding the hungry, marching for civil rights or against war, etc BECAUSE of their religious faith? That they wouldn’t do these things if not for their religious faith? How sad that idea is.

So, those of us without religious faith can be counted on NOT to feed the hungry, march for civil rights or against the war, etc., because, after all, we can’t be good because we have no religious faith.

It is this kind of thinking that helped me break free from organized religion and the fantasy life that it supports. So I suppose I should thank you for personalizing once again why “religious faith” is such a bad thing.

The very idea that there is one single phenomenon called "religion" is already so incredibly intellectually lazy as to indict Hitchens's seriousness. At most you can argue that there is one set of religous QUESTIONS (who am I? Why am I here? What do I need ultimately?), but it is crazy not to recognize that there myriads of different answers to these questions, ranging from the ridicoluos/criminal to the sublime. We can discuss all the religions you want, but to talk about "religion" is essentially a waste of time to me, and usually just reflects the prejudices of the commenters. Case in point, most of the commenters in this forum identify "religion" with some version of American protestantism. This typically means half-baked Calvinism: God as the big boss in the sky who sends people to hell arbitrarily, hates homosexuals and so on and so forth. Please guys, that does not even cover most expressions of historical Christianity. It is just what you would have been taught in a bad Sunday school in the USA a few decades ago.

The very idea that there is one single phenomenon called "religion" is already so incredibly intellectually lazy as to indict Hitchens's seriousness. At most you can argue that there is one set of religous QUESTIONS (who am I? Why am I here? What do I need ultimately?), but it is crazy not to recognize that there myriads of different answers to these questions, ranging from the ridicoluos/criminal to the sublime. We can discuss all the religions you want, but to talk about "religion" is essentially a waste of time to me, and usually just reflects the prejudices of the commenters. Case in point, most of the commenters in this forum identify "religion" with some version of American protestantism. This typically means half-baked Calvinism: God as the big boss in the sky who sends people to hell arbitrarily, hates homosexuals and so on and so forth. Please guys, that does not even cover most expressions of historical Christianity. It is just what you would have been taught in a bad Sunday school in the USA a few decades ago.

Mixing religion and politics corrupts both. Religion is corrupted instantly by its easy access to power and money, and the the ranks of politicians are gradually corrupted by perverts, con-men, and sociopaths. You blame secularists for this? No, the churches have been all to eager to pack the temple with the money changers and power hungry hypocrites. If Christ came back today, he'd be knocking at your door, whip in hand.

Ah, yes, the old "switcharoo". Unfortunately, the very idea that Hitchens is a fundamentalist is refuted by these words which you would have found in the first chapter of his book, had you bothered to read it:

"Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same indulgence?"

Clearly, they would not, if our modern Western society did not force religious people to show the same tolerance towards Mr. Hitchens that he extends to them. Tolerance does not come naturally to true believers.

For another perspective on churches in America,
see the photo essay, "Churches ad hoc", at
www.efn.org/~hkrieger/church.htm

For another perspective on churches in America,
see the photo essay, "Churches ad hoc", at
www.efn.org/~hkrieger/church.htm

For another perspective on churches in America,
see the photo essay, "Churches ad hoc", at
www.efn.org/~hkrieger/church.htm

People, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, tend to come in good and bad varieties, in infinite shades of grey and other colors. Noted and agreed.

But Hitchens isn't arguing that. He's arguing that _religion_ as it is generally practiced is morally unethical.

Can you justify telling a child that God tortures the vast majority of the world's population forever and ever, just for not believing in Him or believing in the wrong way or the wrong faith or studying the wrong holy book? Do you think that it is ethical to encourage a child to love and praise a God who will then proceed to horribly torture that child's Muslim or Pagan or Jewish or Christian or atheist playmate, just because of the faith that playmate was brought up in? Do you think we should be good to others because kindness and compassion make a healthier society, or because a big person in the sky will hurt us if we don't and reward us if we do?

I am not an atheist - more of a pantheist - but some of the concepts that many religions (not all) hold to be true and just are frankly appalling.

You haven't really said anything that addresses Hitchens' points, and indeed you use an argument he already addressed and subsequently dismissed - namely that the good works you point to (building hospitals, etc.), could all easily have been done without religion. Indeed, Sam Harris also addresses this argument in his book, stating that because most everyone throughout history did or had to identify as religious, pointing out that religious people have done good things doesn't really get you anywhere in your argument.

the simple truth is that the word faith, which is believing in anything without any facts to back it up, like the bible, the Koran et al, has produced more pain in this world than any other single event of human existence. Yes, their have been great humans on this earth, that could be called "saints" but they can be counted in less than 3 digits from the beginning of record keeping. Adam and Eve and all the rest are fairy tales to make a point. A simple look at the biology of this planet, billions of cells, mating, changing over hundreds of millions of years are proven facts. intelligent design is a silly attempt to force creationism into the educational programs in the world. Nature fails much much more than she succeeds with about 99% of all species from the beginning extinct, making intelligent design a poor choice of words in the first place. But, after saying all that, I do disagree with the agnostics and atheists in their statement that the universe doesn't give raise to the thought that there may be a god. Gravity is here, and one hundred billion light years away from here and is the same. And that is only one natural law that is the same. It gives pause and should regarding natural laws genesis. Further, in each of our hearts, there is a place, a knowing place, not a thinking one, that talks to us, in the middle of the night, on a hill, the ocean, just after the death of a loved one, that seems more than we are. Is that god speaking to us? No one knows, but understanding what is right and what is wrong comes from those moments. That is good enough for now.

This is SO weak. Firstly we have a lame attempt to manipulate language: secular fundamentalist is an oxymoron, you moron! Fundamentalism is an unthinking, unquestioning adherence to a RELIGIOUS belief. Please do learn the etymology of the word! It is ONLY correctly applied to religious belief.

Secondly, where is the evidence that CR, RD, etc. don't see in nuances? Far from it, they are the ones who CAN see the subtle nuances in the human mind that led that mind to invent a god(s) as a means of explaining the world.

I didn't find the dualism you refer to in Hitchens' piece – religion = bad; secularism = good. It was a position piece arguing only religion = bad. If there was an argument for secularism it was at best vaguely implicit.

I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by his straightforward piece. Perhaps a rigorous intellectual examination of your superstitions might reveal a greater truth about the myths supplied in religion and their purpose.

By the bye, I noticed that you did not take up Hitchens on his challenge.

I will agree with Rude and bombastic, but the intellectually lazy title certainly goes to those who claim that a deity is 'beyond man's ability to comprehend'

Lots of things have been beyond man's ability to understand, flying, a round Earth, traveling to the moon.

Seems if you're intent enough, NOTHING is beyond Man's ability to undertsand, as long as you ask the right questions, and continue to question when the answer is unsatisfactory!

Most morally bankrupt? How very irresponsible to randomly throw that statement in your arguement. It detracts from your arguement. On matters of faith, what is wrong with a president claiming to have a personal relationship with God. You of all people should be able to understand that. Arguing semantics in matters of faith is absurd. Don't let your fascination with defending liberal diatribe through religion suck you into an "intellectually lazy" discourse.

Your analysis seems to be flawed in one aspect. Again just as you say, religion has been the source of both good and bad outcomes for humanity, it does not necessarily follow that all the good they did would not have been accomplished "but for" the fact that religion was there. Part of the secular humanist argument is that these hospitals and civil rights activists would still be there even if religion wasn't. Most of those who joined these worthwhile causes probably did so because they are good people, not because they were forced to do so by blind faith or religious instruction.

You said it, Randall!

I do not consider myself in high dudgeon Reverend Balmer. Nor am I a fan of Christopher Hitchens. But, it was not secular humanists who slaughtered 6 million Jews in Germany. It was not secular humanists who justified the lynchings and murders of young black men in America for even daring to glance at a white woman. It was devout white Christians who committed these atrocities.

And I do not spare others of a religious persuasion. It was not secular humanists who flew those planes murderously into the trade towers and the Pentagon on 9-11. And please, do not bother to rationalize such murder by raising some morally equivalent explanation hinting that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all secular humanists because they were not.

Having said that, I appreciate your comments indicting those who suggest that secular humanism is at the root of America's problems. As you suggest, such generalizations about people's strongly held beliefs--and I agree that Hitchens is committing that very vice--are absurd.

An excellent point, Mr. Balmer; absolutists are almost always absolutely wrong! And its a point I keep hammering away on in my blog (http://webcentrist.wordpress.com/)and in conversations with friends (most of whom argue from a faith-based perspective).

Whymrhymer

Our country still has problems where religious groups are interfering with the public health care and public education of other citizens. We need more people pointing out these problems, whatever labels the religious apologists put on them.

"Me wonders":

If the flaws in all the foundations of contemporary religions were fixed, would there be any "gods" or "god reps" left??????? Jesus would definitely be downgraded to a well-meaning preacher/peasant.

And Mohammed, he would be downgraded to the warmongering, womanizing, plagiarizing, and hallucinator that he was.

And then there is Henry VIII!!!!

Yes, God save us from dogmatists, whatever their stripe! I remain agnostic about God's existence, and fairly certain that God does not interfere in the details of human existence, or of the rest of creation for that matter.
My agnosticism stems not only from disagreement with the religion of my birth, Roman Catholicism, but also from a growing realization that God is beyond human ability to describe or otherwise capture in human expression. Of course, I include in that my personal rejection of the notion that Jesus was/is God Incarnate. And believe me, that is not an easy thing for me to assert.
I have noticed that atheists like Hitchens are very angry men. Insofar as they can not prove a negative, nor even give evidence to it, they attack religion, which is man's feeble attempt to organize and codify a given community's beliefs and practices regarding God and the consequences of their relationship with God. To be sure, appeals to various emotions are made by both sects and individual leaders of sects. And no one can deny the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion or in the inexcusable attempts to "avoid scandal" that would bring shame to the Church, which is said to be the body of Christ, more than simply the sum total of its members and their actions for better or worse.
As. Father Balmer stated, organized religion has handed angry atheists grist for their vitriolic mill. But as irrational as the excesses of organized religion have been, so too are the angry, one dimensional responses of Hitchens, et al, just as irrational. His latest twist seems to be to compare religious belief to the subjugation of individuals to totalitarianism, a leap that covers his ass insofar as charges of horrific brutality against atheistic regimes tarnish the image of the Reasoned Atheist.
Life is nuanced because people are nuanced. But I guess Hitchens, like the President whose war he supports, doesn't do nuance.

David:

Hell is the key to understanding the history of religion and in turn religion. Take hell away and there is no religion, nothing to buy one's way out of, i.e. Conquistadors gifting Aztec and Inca gold to the church, make gold chalices to hold the precious body and blood of the savior.

Saved from missing out on heaven. Missing out on heaven is hell.

What is the oldest record of threats of hell? The ancient Egyptians seem to have invented it. They at least are the ones that first put the threat in writing, pictures even. And they moved hell from this earth to the next earth, (had no concept of a "stand alone" spirit world).

In the beginning they used "condition of the dead body." They assumed the regenerated body in the next world would be in the same condition as the one left behind here on earth, disintegrated means dead to stay dead for easy example. That's backed up by sacred scripture:

Matthew 5:29
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

That statement mentions both types of hell, condition of body and a place called hell where those that do not do as dictated by the religion are held, a prison. Hell evolved from condition of body to a place. That tells us Jesus fits in the cusp where hell was shifting gears and not 2,000 years ago when hell was just a place, (main line Bible based religions).

http://www.hoax-buster.org for old time hell and in turn old time religion, Christianity dating back 3,300 years at least. All the key essentials of Christianity, son of God, heaven, hell and of course sins.

3,300 years ago the Egyptians sent people to hell with the forever wound of a pole through the gut, (turns the sinner into a cross and takes 3 hours for him to die). They assumed the pole came along with the condemned still in his gut, (objects in the near vicinity of the dead body are also duplicated,, Jesus didn't say, "thrown into hell naked").

The Egyptians must have stopped believing the religious authorities, the pole coming along and the sinner, (broke Pharaoh's laws) again immediately being condemned to hell in the next world, and on and on and... So they added the monster Eater, (demon on the nebol bridge) to eat sinners all gone to stay gone. Even that was not believed by enough that it too had to be upgraded to "thrown into hell."

Hoax buster has several artist's-concept of sinners being "cast into hell" over the side of the nebol bridge. It also has artist's concept of "the one" Jesus warned us to fear, (terror) throwing the soul, (record of sins) in with the "dude."

All religions are terrorist organizations operated by operators for their benefit and at the expense of suckers,, sorry, meant to say those with faith.

Thank God the Bible is a proved literary hoax.

I am growing tired of reading intelligent and otherwise respectful religious commentators call Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al. "fundamentalists". Religious fundamentalists take a "my way or the high(hell)way" approach and would use strong social persuasion or force to make non-believers comply with their mandates. Secularists like Hitchens do nothing more than write books, engage in debates, and try to convince others by the power of their ideas. They do not advocate force unlike any number of religious devotees. Secular fundamentalists simply do not exist. While one might state that communism as practiced by the North Koreans, Soviets, or other regimes is an excellent example of secular fundamentalism I'd argue they simply replace religion with party orthodxy. Indeed, the Soviet party hacks interfered with scientific inquiry if it didn't fit the party line (read Simon Singh's "Big Bang The Origin of the Universe" as an example pp 363-364"). Seem familiar?

To respond to the fellow who said science=religion, that is simply not true. While I am far from being a scientist (my degrees are in history and law), I do remember from primary school that science operates on empiracal observation, the ability to test and repeat observations, and a willingness to challenge assumptions. In short, science takes "nothing for granted" and results in open inquiry. Religion is the opposite. You believe in something despite the evidence and close your mind to alternate explanations. Religion > Science. Never has, never will.

"Beware of Secular Humanists"? Please. Do you fear what they have to say? Beware of Islamic terrorists, Christians who would undermine our Constitution (in the U.S. at least) and any other religious adherents who will stiffle freedom of conscious, human rights, and scientific inquiry.

when a baby is born, removed from its warm and perfect uterine world to observe for the first time something harsh, cold, and remarkably different from everything it has known, it responds in the only way it knows how; it cries until it is too tired to cry anymore.

what was once warm and comfortable is no longer. what was once black is now white. what was once dark is now light. and according to most babies the difference is worth remarking.

i see this debate on religion the same way. it is about time for the larger population to allow the religious among us to be delivered. they will cry when they sense the light, but they will get tired and stop and learn that differentiating between darkness and light is a skill that they learn from the first moments of life.

religion is a human invention. whether you believe in god or not, it is how you adhere to that faith that troubles our global culture. how you worship, how you maintain that faith, is what other humans of other religions seem to take exception.

it is the war and the atrocities committed in the name of the god of a religion that we need to stop. if the religious spent a life of introspection and decided not to kill in the name of their religion's god, then all those religious hospitals created by good and decent religious people (and all the babies born in them) would seem more important.

don't be surprised as the secular humanists are finally speaking out. look inward and correct the behavior (both personal and social) of the fellow faithful before attacking the next wave of logical thinkers born in the era of 9/11, centrino duo chips, and globalization. this world will reject the legacy of inquisitions and holy wars by simply undermining it. it is what we were born to do.

Another false choice offered by a practioner of the greatest of false choices - religion.

Religion=bad, secularism=not religion.

If you know anything at all about logic, you would immediately see that there is no if-then between the two statements. Secularism=!religion as a premise does NOT imply secularism is good, it simply means it's not religion. There are a whole world of things which are not religion, say .... apples and oranges are !religion.
That secularism is better than religion requires other premises, other arguments.

Like the argument so many believers make regarding atheism as a "belief". From inside your box you just can't see things that aren't in-the-box. A box in which you have chosen to hide.

David: wrote

Wicca. Unitarian Universalism. Judaism. Even Jehovah's Witnesses do not threaten with eternal damnation. They only speak of eternal separation from God; you become nothingness if you're not part of Jehovah's kingdom.

----

All religions conform to:
1. Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded.
3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.

The demands determine the religion. Different religions make different demands. The religions are all run by people who dodge being the demander by transferring that part to the supernatural thus avoiding prosecution for operating a confidence scam.

The reward is called heaven. No matter if it's just a frame of mind, it's a "heavenly" one.

The punishment is called hell. No matter how minimal, just a frame of mind, it's "hell."

Therefore all religions are terrorist organizations that threaten with hell. We can envelope hell from what you would like to say isn't even hell, just miss out on seeing God or something equally innocent sounding to being set on fire with the fire that burns but does not consume for all eternity.

Mr. Hitchens is a polite one. He left terrorize children by threatening them with hell, (fires of hell for Baptists children) out of his list.

Dear Rev. Balmer:

You didn't answer the question.

I hope this was a web-glitch or typo on the part of the Post, but the lead-in title of this commentary is "Beware Secular Humanists" which denotes something far different than the title and content of Mr. Balmer's "Beware Secular Fundamentalists". I certainly hope that this isn’t a conscious effort to equate Humanism with Fundamentalism (of any stripe).

Thanks.

Gee, I would use the same words to describe Christian or Islamic fundamentalism: ".. one of the characteristics of fundamentalism everywhere, ......, is an unrelentingly dualistic view of the world – good versus bad, black versus white – a refusal to see nuances and ambiguities."

Gee, I would use the same words to describe Christian or Islamic fundamentalism: ".. one of the characteristics of fundamentalism everywhere, ......, is an unrelentingly dualistic view of the world – good versus bad, black versus white – a refusal to see nuances and ambiguities."

What on earth is a secular humanist?

You can't accept Bill O'Reilly's labels for your opponents and then come across as the reasonable, open minded type.

Dear Professor Balmer:

Your writing exhibits immaturities in need of repair. The jarring 'But' beginning your second paragraph in conjunction w/ the second 'But' in the same para. usually is termed zig-zagging, an annoying jerking around of the reader. As well you claim Hitchens has a dualistic framework, but you cite nothing to substantiate that, an old paper tiger ploy. In the little given in the Washington Post article, it didn't seem to me a push for a black and white, evil/good paradigm. Moreover, I like the way you chide Hitchens for his lack of nuansical grey understanding and then go on to a blanket statement that all his statements concerning religion are absurd. You clearly are a bad writer stemming from bad thinking.

I'm sending this to your hallowed university president, maybe spending less time finding fancy, flowery chair titles and more time writing well will change you. Religion is a social construct, invented by the partriarchy to control people especially women. God the Father, God the Son, and the neutered Holy Ghost, all preclude women in the hierarchy of power. So, why should we bother w/ that old model?

Religion for me is a human construct

I'm amazed that someone could so astonishingly fail to understand Christopher Hitchens. I don't agree with the guy all the time, but he's an excellent writer - any misinterpretation of something he writes is clearly the fault of the reader. You'll need to repeat the 3rd grade, I'm afraid, Mr. Balmer.

The label of "secular fundamentalist" is misleading and unhelpful.

What is bad about religious fundamentalists is that they derive their entire worldview from a single text, and even worse, from selected passages of that text (often pulled out of context). Secularists like Mr. Hitchens do no such thing.

The point of view of secular humanists involves an open-mindedness before reaching hypotheses, one in which they bounce views off of one another to test their plausibility. This idea of the dialectic goes all the way back to Plato.

Secularists also then tend to exhibit an open-mindededness about testing their hypotheses. If your belief is not turning out to be true, you re-think how you arrived it, and try something else. This is the great gift of scientific method.

It would be more helpful to respond to Mr. Hitchens by trying to point out what, if anything, religion provides us that we cannot achieve by other means.

"If you don't like religion, fine. Go to science. Both demand leaps in faith. Either accept scientific theory or accept a religious tenet, same thing. Believe in something, because nihilism makes you grumpy and you won't be invited to fun parties."

Uh... this shows a determined ignorance of science. Science does NOT demand leaps of faith- in fact, it prohibits them. Go read a real book on science, not a creationist pamphlet. The very cornerstone of science is questioning conclusions based on evidence.

And nihilism may make people no fun at parties, but only the same way religion does- if someone is always shouting about life being meaningless, that's annoying and whiny. If someone is always shouting about accepting Jesus as their savior, that's annoying and preachy.

I strongly disagree with the central idea of this short piece. Hitchens has never claimed that no good has ever come from religion. He merely shows that basing societal actions on make-believe on the balance leads to bad outcomes.

Balmer himself admits this:

"The government here in the United States is headed by a man who claims to be called by God – and whose administration will very likely be remembered as the most morally bankrupt in American history."

The so-called 'faithful' will ALWAYS fall for this type of leader.

If Balmer is sincere, he should be fighting not against Hitchens, but to get religion out of politics - period and for good.

While it is very clever to paste the same label on Hitchens et al. as the religious zealots they are combating. Ironically, you lambast them as "intellectually lazy", while providing no evidence for your witty labels.

It seems that you just don't like them revealing the nonsense that modern religion has become, so you resort to pseudointellectual name calling.

If you have specific evidences of "dangers" of secular humanism, please post them. Otherwise, you are just engaging in the intellectually lazy sport of ad hominem attacks.

Don't you think that you are falling into the same trap you believe Mr. Hitchens has fallen into? If religious people are especially enjoined the "love one another," then you are setting a poor example by your title. "Beware Secular Humanists" means that you are urging your co-religionists to beware of a huge class of people. Your rejection of this huge groups of people hardly fits in with your "shades of gray" argument. Why don't you recognize that not all "secular humanists" are similar even as you expect others to realize that religious people are all similar? This is sloppily written, sloppily thought out, or both.

Don't you think that you are falling into the same trap you believe Mr. Hitchens has fallen into? If religious people are especially enjoined the "love one another," then you are setting a poor example by your title. "Beware Secular Humanists" means that you are urging your co-religionists to beware of a huge class of people. Your rejection of this huge groups of people hardly fits in with your "shades of gray" argument. Why don't you recognize that not all "secular humanists" are similar even as you expect others to realize that religious people are all similar? This is sloppily written, sloppily thought out, or both.

So I clicked on the title which says "beware secular humanists" but this woefully lacking opinion piece is about "secular fundamentalists". Bait and switch as far as I am concerned.

Your assertion that "... people of faith have also been responsible for much good in the world..." is of course true, but misses the point by a wide mark. The major religions are all by their very nature, fundamentalist. They demand that you surrender your ability to reason in trade for a promise of a theme park afterlife. The alternative is eternal damnation, perhaps the most intellectually obscene fund raising concept in human history. Believe or be damned. At it's core, religion is about power and fund raising. It is a business founded on a con. And for every nickel spent helping the poor, 95 cents goes to obscene edifies and salaries of people who would otherwise have to do actual work in order to make a living.

So according to your view, if religion is sort of good, that's OK. How is it that religon can breed evil (Iranians, for example) as well as good? Can't you say that about everything? What makes religon special? It's just folk belief best left in the past.

Hitchens does not say religious people do no good. He notes that many religious people do atrocious things that they assert God is responsible for, thereby heaving the moral load for bad acts onto the back of an imaginary figure. Every war ever fought has been with the blessings of God, to both sides. Ahmadinejad addressed students and faculty at Columbia University the other day, and diverted his attention toward prayer to God, several times, in a show of his religiosity, and implored his listeners to adopt his brand of religion; in his opinion the only proper way to worship God, the all knowing, God, the all powerful, God, the merciful. There are powerful forces at work in the minds of people who embrace the love of God, in the way small children have embraced the love of their natural fathers: their protectors and providers. Bush speaks to God. God speaks to Bush. And, together, they have stirred up a hornet's net in the Middle East. Bush made a mistake. Will God fix it? Organized religion is a power grab by Authority. Church officers exchange the certainty of comforting things for money, property, and prestige. You cannot crowbar religion away from believers. It is a comfort to them. They don't need proof. Belief is enough. People are weak, they believe. They don't come equipped with a natural morality. Strict moral instruction from the church is necessary so that people will not lie, cheat, steal, or kill. Except when God says it is okay to do so.

Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens may, in some sense, be allied in their views, but they come from very different perspectives and fields. It's a lot more complicated than Randall Balmer has suggested here. Dawkins, in particular, doesn't believe in God principally because the theory of evolution explains historical change without aupernatural apparatus. Harris approaches the issue from a historical perspective, not a scientific one. Hitchens is always in high dudgeon; he's a columnist after all. So eliding the three together is a bit too easy although Balmer may be correct about Hitchens' logic.

The sound of prayer starts the American legislature. Would you deny the Iranian man's sermon to Columbia how the light of God serves as a torch for scholars? I would. Praxis is all, faith is blindness.

I note that you retreat to ad hominem attacks on Hitchens rather than substantive argument on an issue. Is that the best you can do?

I am a religious person in that my life is based on spiritual principles. I pray for literally everyone everyday, especially those that seem to be the most destrutive. The life of Jesus, the occurence of miracles, and divine guidance are as real to me as the computer I am typing on. I however observe that those whose lives are most in synch with the Christian ideals are not those who say they are Christians, but the humanists, who for instance are doing the most about global warming and lobbying for peace.

Speaking AS a heathen, I'll lay up trust in the
people that are all about the science, cause
and effect, and so forth. The day I see some
of these religious institutions coming forth and
volunteering their books, I'll start having a lot
more faith in their honesty. ANYone can pick up
a piece of religious literature, leaf through
it, and claim themselves to be a 'minister-in-training', and start gaming people. But, as
we've seen time and again, some of the WORST
evil that's ever been done on this earth has
been perpetrated 'in the name of God', and, you
may not like it, but now you understand why you'll
never get one thin dime from me, nor see me
in your House O Hypnosis, there...write to Bush,
maybe he'll send you a Big Box O Gummit Donutz...

I was all prepared for a high dudgeon when I read the main newspage lede, "Beware of Secular Humanists". I've know a few in my time and although they may be confused about the religion-like roots of their faith, they're pretty much good people.

But I see the lede on the newspage conflicts with the lede here, which warns of "Secular Fundamentalists". Which leaves me nothing to exercise my high dudgeon with.

But I'm not disappointed - because I see the good professor has Hitchen's down to a "T". Preach it, Rev!

Oh boy. What god-awful mendacity, did you write this while on the toilet? The scant paragraphs you dashed off make it almost unfitting even to respond to you. If this is the way you teach, your students should be refunded their tuition.

The criticism of secular humanists about religion is not about the actions of the religionist, pro or con in dealing with humanity. Its the default position of dogma, of an absolute belief in divine relevation that makes even the most insane ideas of man and universe impervious to logic and reason.

Its knowledge versus certainty, and you know it and the fact that you dance around it shows how little respect you have for your audience.

If anyone is intellectual lazy it surely isn't Mr Hutchens.

And in case you are, I've done your homework for you; citing Dr. Bronowski.

"The Principle of Uncertainty is a bad name. In science--or outside of it--we are not uncertain; our knowledge is merely confined, within a certain tolerance. We should call it the Principle of Tolerance. And I propose that name in two senses: First, in the engineering sense--science has progressed, step by step, the most successful enterprise in the ascent of man, because it has understood that the exchange of information between man and nature, and man and man, can only take place with a certain tolerance.

"But second, I also use the word, passionately, about the real world. All knowledge--all information between human beings--can only be exchanged within a play of tolerance. And that is true whether the exchange is in science, or in literature, or in religion, or in politics, or in *any* form of thought that aspires to dogma. It's a major tragedy of my lifetime and yours that scientists were refining, to the most exquisite precision, the Principle of Tolerance--and turning their backs on the fact that all around them, tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair.

"The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty. When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despots' belief that they have absolute certainty.

"It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. *This* is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality--this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

"Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we *can* know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

'We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to *touch people*."

If Christopher Hitchens is against God, then God can rest easy, he must be doing something right.

Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that, while some believers are justifiably criticized (9/11 attackers), religions have done good things for people too, like build hospitals etc, so that needs to be taken into account, and somehow speaks to the veracity of religion. Well considering that the vast majority of people in the US are religious, and always have been, is it surprising that these massive organizations built hospitals?

The bottom line is there are good reasons to do good things, and there are bad reasons to do good things. Being "good" because you fear hell, or because you think you "must" to please God is a bad reason to do a good thing. Yet a good thing still results. How much better is it to do good just for the sake of doing it?

I also disagree with the "shades of gray" view of belief in God. One can equate that to being 'almost' pregnant. Either you believe in invisible supernatural sky daddies or you don't.

Our panelist writes: "He prefers to deal in dualistic categories – religion = bad; secularism = good – rather than expend the effort and take the trouble to move beyond such facile generalizations."

As opposed to the considerably more facile generalization that theocracy (let's compare apples to apples) = good; secularism = bad?

While it is true that religious organizations help serve social interests, they do so at too high a price. The ink of religion is writ in the blood of the innocent. The collective hatred, wars, terror, agony and corruption they bring are not worth the extra help they provide.

The day religious leaders stop harming other people's lives to serve their own ambitions, is the day religion will be a force for good. Until then they and all their supporters are just as evil, corrupt and stained with sin as their leaders. No adherent of any religion can deny their complicity if they support a morally bankrupt institution, and any institution that seeks to determine how OTHER PEOPLE LIVE is, by definition, morally bankrupt. The Golden Rule is golden for a reason.

So people like Professor Balmer should thank Mr. Hitchens instead of throwing stones. Perhaps one day, religion will be the force for good it has the potential to be.

To call Mr. Hitchens "intellectually lazy" reflects either a lack of exposure to his writing or a deep insecurity about one's own scholarship. Professor Balmer's critique betrays a misunderstanding about the nature of fundamentalism, which refers to absolute adherence to a set of principles or beliefs, generally as expressed in scripture/divine text. To which text or set of principles do atheists such as Hitchens slavishly subscribe? Among the points Hitchens makes and Balmer fails to grasp is that one need not be guided by religious belief to act morally--to address poverty and feed the hungry, as Balmer suggests. Ironically, these were the activities of the most famous, and recently revealed, disbeliever in God: Mother Teresa.

I see that no one has mentioned Buddhism, which is atheist, does not proselytize and has no promise of damnation (or whatever) for not believing. Buddhism asserts that an individual commits to reducing suffering by reducing self-interest. The attainment of Nirvana is "seeing the light", realization of the self free of selfish desires. You don't see Buddhists starting wars or focusing on accumulating believers and wealth. You do see Buddhist monks protesting the military government of Burma. Only one Christian in recent memory has raised social consciousness like that: Martin Luther King, Jr. But I contend King would have done that without his faith -- he was that kind of man.

There does seem to be a new breed of obnoxious atheism out there that relies on conflation and straw man arguments. A shame really. I used to generally find atheists to at least be intellectually honest with themselves and others, but anymore they seem to be as bad as any other fundie type, willing to tie their minds into pretzels to maintain their world view. This Dawkins/Hitchens influence, it's turning into quite a nasty little cult.

Seems like all the guest responders are in complete denial. Happy in the knowledge / belief that there way is the righteous way. God forbid Mr. Hitchens for calling it as he sees it.

Why do you bother? Why do you expend your energy on Hitchens? You have so many other things you could be wasting your time on other than this mess, don't you think? Why not spend it on something like this illegal war, or the racist remarks of O'Rielly? Why not dialog about Jena and how to make things better, how to promote a better racial attitude or the fact that we still need to combat such things. How about poverty, joblessness, education? The need for this kind of discourse still exist, and yet all you can do is talk about Christopher Hitchens and his nonsense. Please, instead of wasting you time on this load of hooey, use the time more constructively, if you spent an hour writing this, spend the hour teaching a child to read. Spend your time as God would want you to, and stop worrying about secular humanist who aren't doing a thing to you. Toss 'em all up and let God sort 'em out as you know he will.

ANONYMOUS sez:
"Is the Hitchens' book the new bible? Appears it must be, as one post offered to "point out chapters, verses and page numbers" aka "chapter and verse." I think that alone proved Mr. Belmar's point. Fundamentalism is dangerous regardless of its source."

No, you've actually proved my point. I put my question in a form that a religionist would understand. Hitchens makes the "gray" point that one must have some instruction in religion if one is to understand literature as literature is littered with Biblical quotes and allegories. Dawkins could not do without the great musical works of Bach that are based on the Bible.

More to the point, the last I checked, most books are made up of chapters and many of verses. The phrase is hardly Bible-specific...unless the Bible is the only book you bother to read, that is.

Anonymous said, "David, you said it enough times, "grossly inaccurate characterizations of religion""

Geez, twerp, I DID apologize for the multiple posts. The blog/server was screwing up. I didn't think my posts were going through at the time.

"All religions to some extent are terrorist gangs that threaten us with eternal damnation for not doing as they dictate. That URL site you ref begins with something about the Iranian pres at Columbia. It calls him a terrorist. Is he? Name a religion that does not threaten those who do not embrace it."

Wicca. Unitarian Universalism. Judaism. Even Jehovah's Witnesses do not threaten with eternal damnation. They only speak of eternal separation from God; you become nothingness if you're not part of Jehovah's kingdom.

Yeah, way to undercut your argument with your title, you jerkhead.

With respect to Mr. Balmer's comments, he is correct when he points to the 'religious' banter by the current American administration. This proves the point of mass control of people by invoking 'god'. The public mass are so devoid of critical thinking, that they vote, not for the most qualified, rather for the most religious. See Also: Patriotism. This is how Hitler came to be so popular.

No one disputes the good deeds that religious organizations have contributed to society. Can these good deeds have been committed without religion? Yes. There are many secular humanitarian charitable activities, so making the argument of good deeds are bound by a belief in a god is ridiculous. Good deeds are not reserved solely for the religious.

The problem with religion is that it is used to mass-control the ideas and activities of enormous numbers of 'followers'. It does not allow for critical thought witch is minimal supply in today's world.

I would really like to go into the history of religion, and how they are derived from pagan sun-god 'religions', but there is simply no time. Religion is made up by man, used by man, to control man. Think a little. Study the actual history of religion, not what you're told to believe.

I take issue with the phrase "secular fundamentalist"

Hitchens and Dawkins are antitheists. Whether they are also secularists is besides the point, your issues with them lie in their antitheism.

Secularism is the belief that certain institutions, such as government, work more effectively when kept independent of religious belief. Despite the attempts of many *religious* fundamentalists to paint secularism as antitheism, it is in truth quite the opposite. In a pluralistic society of varying faiths, using the rational as the common meeting point for governance is the only effective means to respect and protect everyone's right to their own beliefs.

And secularism is the cornerstone of modern democracy; the simple understanding that the right to govern must stem from the will of the people, and not from God.

Do you believe differently?

"All religions to some extent are terrorist gangs that threaten us with eternal damnation for not doing as they dictate. "

Better try backing up that 'all'...

Frankly, I think that's why *certain* religions don't want their local monopolies broken.

Cause they, and certain hardline atheists, are the only ones saying religion *has* to be that way, as stupid as it is for some people to claim that's not what they're doing when that is in fact *exactly* what they're trying to do.

Joel Friedlander states: " If people acted the way the religious think that G-d wants them to act about what is important than people would behave pretty well "

No - you've misunderstood the problem spectacularly - this is precisely the problem.

People think God wants them to hate gay people, hate transexuals, fly planes into buildings, stop life-saving research using clumps of embryonic cells. They do this - because they don't value the use of evidence to determine truth.

Rev balmer - shades of gray, eh?

Well, tell us - did Jesus or did he not die for our sins, then rise from the dead 3 days later, then ascend into heaven to live forever with God?

These are the tenets of Christianity (oops, forgot "born of a virgin") that Christians repeat in the creed every Sunday. Is there room for shades of gray there? A little bit of metaphor, perhaps? Or are these black and white issues?

Please answer yes or no.

Mr. Hitchen is an atheist fanatic. He is no more fanatic than a religious one, and he is struggling uphill. Most people are religious in the United States, whether for organic biological reasons, or for psychological ones. There is no answer to the questions that Mr. Hitchens raises, if there is a G-d so what, if there isn't, so what. The real question is how people behave to one another. It doesn't really matter why people behave well, it only matters that they do. He has his points, but his stridency turns people off and he hurts his own cause.
If people behave according to universal moral principals than there is nothing to complain about, whatever faith they practice. What gets Hitchen's goat is that many of those who talk about moral behavior don't follow up on their own blabber. And of course, the worst part of any religion is the very common practice of denying the efficacy of other religions. Thinking that your way is the only way has created far more suffering than any other aspect of religion, and it is still a part of many mainline religions. When we all grow up and recognize that a moral and ethical person deserves to be lauded no matter what they believe, then we will have grown up as a race.
I knew an old fellow once who came to Shul to pray ever day, probably three times a day, although I wasn't there all the time, and I asked him one night why he was so devoted to G-d. He answered me by saying that he had long since ceased to believe in G-d. He prayed he said because it was the only way he knew to order his behavior (not using those words) so that he did the right thing and knew why he must do it. He also said that he didn't want to create doubts in his children and possibly ruin their lives. He said that he lost his faith when his entire family, his first family that is, was murdered by the Nazi's when they marched into Poland. The fellow was very close with the then rabbi of the shul, whose entire family had also been murdered by the Nazi's while he was away at school.
I have a Catholic friend, almost like an Aunt to me, who says that you must ask yourself as you live, "What will you say to G-d when you go before him and he asks, 'What did you do with the gifts that I gave you?'" The way I figure it, everybody should live every day making sure that they can come up with a positive answer to that question. In that way it won't matter whether you believe in G-d or not. If people acted the way the religious think that G-d wants them to act about what is important than people would behave pretty well and Mr. Hitchens wouldn't have anything to trouble himself about.

David, you said it enough times, "grossly inaccurate characterizations of religion"

How so? Religions are generally as stated, (Read the weeks topic paragraph).

All religions to some extent are terrorist gangs that threaten us with eternal damnation for not doing as they dictate. That URL site you ref begins with something about the Iranian pres at Columbia. It calls him a terrorist. Is he? Name a religion that does not threaten those who do not embrace it.

What else did those two, Hithcens and Dawkins get "right"?

Maybe your God is a not a dictator and "their God" is a dictator?

Please somebody help me with this one.

The question to the panelists was: Best-selling atheist Christopher Hitchens wrote: "Religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and ." Why is he right or wrong?

Are there facts that sustain that the top three or four religions, as organizations, are as stated by Hitchens?

**Violent? provide facts why he is right or wrong.

**Irrational? provide facts why he is right or wrong.

**Intolerant? provide facts why he is right or wrong.

**Tribalist? provide facts why he is right or wrong.

**Bigots? provide facts why he is right or wrong.

**Invested in ignorance? provide facts why he is right or wrong.

**Hostile to free inquiry? provide facts why he is right or wrong.

**Contemptuous of women? provide facts why he is right or wrong.

**Coercive toward children? provide facts why he is right or wrong.

Hope to read factual answers by the educated participants in this forum. Thanks and peace.

" Kenneth Cauthen:

"Critics of religion like Christopher Hitchens typically ignore the cultural context in which religion occurs, seeming to have some ahistorical notion of something they call "religion," and it is always bad."

Well, no, I would say that what we are being sold as 'Religion' in politics is in fact all these nasty things he describes: I just think he falls into the very trap of 'religion' to say that 'religion' must be this way.

In short, if the shoe fits, don't tread on me.

The important issue is separation of church and state. We need to not have religion used to violate Constitutional rights, nor be used by pandering politicians.

Critics of religion like Christopher Hitchens typically ignore the cultural context in which religion occurs, seeming to have some ahistorical notion of something they call "religion," and it is always bad. This ignores the fact that religious belief is always particular and occurs in some particular cultural context, so that what is bad may be in fact as much, if not primarily, a cultural thing and not necessarily solely a religious phenomenon. Also, he and his fellow atheists give little attention to the good that may come out of religion, e. g., opposition to slavery and works of charity and mercy like feeding the hungry and healing the sick. Somehow these things are not part of this abstracted essence of "religion."

They seem to believe that if religion were universally abandoned, the world would be better off. If religion vanished, and everything else remained the same, i. e., people still had the same passions associated with nation, class, race, ethnicity, greed, selfishness, the desire for power, glory, and prestige, I suggest that the world would still be filled with wars, terror, violence, cruelty, oppression, murder, rape, and much more that is despicable. Religion deserves much blame but more is involved in producing the world's ills than this one factor. To attribute everything bad to religion alone and to insist that religion is only bad and never good is absurd.

Efforts to attribute the world's ills to some one cause, private property, e. g. (Marxism), the rectification of which would lead to certain progress, have never been successful.

So, go ahead, Mr. Hitchens, condemn what you call "religion," but, pardon me, if I am equally insistent that whatever you are talking about, it doesn't include the kind of religion I practice.

"Secular" and "Fundamentalist" are contradictions in terms.

While there are 'fundamentalist atheists,' there are no fundamentalist secularists.

Secularism is a pluralistic ideal of how a society is to be run, and quite a reasonable one, I think, as an American.

Mr. Hitchens' blanket condemnations of 'religion,' however erudite, if applied where they apply, do not constitute secularism, they constitute *hardline atheism.*

He may make a convenient bad guy for fundamentalist *Christians* to claim any less than Christian dominion is 'Secular fundamentalism,' but this is simple obfuscation.

Secularism says we are not *ruled* governmentally by any one religion or gang of them.

Secularism says we all get together as a society, with our many beliefs and perspectives, and govern ourselves by what is demonstrable.

Says that if it *requires* a certain religious perspective to want to impose on others, then it's a religious matter, not a secular one.

If anyone starts saying you must *not* believe in your Jesus to be an American, I'll be right there defending you.

But right now, people are saying one *must* believe in your God to be an American, ...that's not opposing a 'secular fundamentalism,' that's *establishing the boundaries that guarantee liberty for *all of us.*

You Christians love to hate Hitchens cause he makes it *easy* for you to label and hate anyone who doesn't believe as you do in terms of what goevernmental power you arrogate to your religions.

But none of this is 'secularism.'

Secularism is accepting people believe differently and living together while dealing with the *practical.*

There are no 'secular fundamentalists,' ...unless of course you consider secularism the *foundation* of America.

Is the Hitchens' book the new bible? Appears it must be, as one post offered to "point out chapters, verses and page numbers" aka "chapter and verse." I think that alone proved Mr. Belmar's point. Fundamentalism is dangerous regardless of its source.

I am taking the lonely stance here in agreeing with Mr. Balmer that Mr. Hitchens is intellectually lazy. In fact, his wisdom is decidedly stunted AND I've read his book (& Dawkins as well). Both make the same old tiresome arguments that go no where but preach to the choir.

If you don't like religion, fine. Go to science. Both demand leaps in faith. Either accept scientific theory or accept a religious tenet, same thing. Believe in something, because nihilism makes you grumpy and you won't be invited to fun parties.

I believe the good priest misses the points of Messieurs Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris by only commenting on how these three thoughtful gentelmen point out negative religious exploits. Father Balmer if you would take the time to read each of these men's further critiques of organized religion you might find that they are not only talking about the "bad" religious people. Their thesis is much broader than what you have chosen to enumerate in your article making what you have to say trivial at best and naive at worst. Please do more reading.

I'm disgusted to see such ugly ad hominem material directed at Mr. Hitchens from a person 'of God,' no less. . .A quick look in the mirror, by Prof. Balmer, might provide the truer definition of "rude" and "bombastic". . .Since Balmer's name-calling has turned me off sufficiently to ensure that I will never read his works, I can't say whether "intellectually lazy" will appear in his mirror, as well; but I CAN say that working through Hitchens's deeply honest exposes of the hypocrisy of religion QUA religion never fails to challenge me intellectually, for which I can only thank Hitchens's enormous intellectual ENERGY and integrity.

You contradict yourself, sir. You dismiss Mr. Hitchen's statements as broad generalization, and then proceed to paint him with that very brush, yourself. Perhaps you should remind yourself that each person's Leap of Faith, and the decision to make that leap or not, is a direct result of the challenges of life and faith.

Rather than merely label his statements about religion as absurd, and then close the argument without further ado, you should accept the existence of the other side of the coin, and recognize the very real challenges facing the Church. Millions and millions of people suffer from poverty everyday and yet the Catholic Church is the largest landowner in the world. Churches of all stripes now endorse political candidates on the merits of very narrow issues, and turn a blind eye to larger problems. For example, the Catholic Church villifies equally abortion, contraception, and sex education. And yet, overpopulation is a very real crisis, as is hunger, poverty, hopelessness and the depletion of the world's resources.

Also, the same churches that politicize their sermons will endorse someone on basis of their "pro-life" stance while ignoring a candidate's multiple, messy divorces.

And yet, despite political corruption of the Church, any suggestion of removing the Church's tax exemptions are met with howls and screams of protests from the Church which would seem fit to drown out the howling of the Damned.

The Church clearly has one foot in the world, and does all it can to protect it's own money and ideas. It also has one foot in the afterlife and demands that the living should live for the next world and not this one.

Contradiction, anyone?

It may not be religion or non-religion that is the core of most of our problems, but rather tribalism, and the uncritical belief that "our side" is always right, everyone else is wrong.

You see it played out in all fields of human endeavor, from sports teams to nation states.

It's evolutionary, in our DNA, and probably with us forever. Cheery thought...I hope I'm wrong.

Apologies for the multiple comments. The server was giving me error messages; I didn't think it was accepting my comments.

Looks like it did, sorry.

I am one secularist who does not consider religion to be inherently harmful or evil -- indeed I am quick to appreciate the forms that beauty can, and have, taken in religious and spiritual contexts and environments.

However, I join the other commenters in asking for some specifics that Hitchens and others have written, that wrongly stereotypes all religion.

I ask, because I have not read any of their books. But I have a little difficulty believing that people as intelligent as Hithcens or Dawkins would make such grossly inaccurate characterizations of religion.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/

Randall:
Russ Beene, John Killian, Matthew Morgan and other devotees down here in Bama--well Matthew is across the street from you now--continue to claim it an honor to have made your acquaintance.
Wish you coulda said somethng about Andrew Sullivan's recent blog dissing the Baptists; then again there is lot of room for diss, in conjunction with a fine defense of deeper faith like you have given us today.
You will find Killian's blog on Huckabee and Creation a delight.
Want to say publicly looking forward with great anticipation to you coming to Greenville, South Carolina, home of Bob Jones and Furman, next March.
Some who lurk here may want to google up Furman proff Jim Guth's Christlike defense of Bob Jones from the Christian Century back in April 2000. That is a shade of gray for sure the likes of Hitchens ought to consider.
Down here we are praying you will be able to thread the needle with aplomb.
Jeff the Baptist (Rogers, pastor of FBC Greenville) has done an excellent job on same topic as your blog today, Hitchens, Harris and the cultured despisers; Rogers did a great job in a sermon back in August up on his blog easily googled at pulpitbytes.
Gettin the water ready for you to walk on down here.
Sincere thanks for this post.
Hope I didn't make this note too personal for public consumption, but got a young cousin in Alaska I am pointing to you for a deeper faith pilgrimage. Continue to hold the banner high.

I'm disgusted to see such ugly ad hominem material directed at Mr. Hitchens from a man of God, no less. . .A quick look in the mirror, by Mr. Balmer, might provide the truer definition of "rude" and "bombastic". . .Since Balmer's name-calling has turned me off sufficiently to insure that I will never read his works, I can't say whether "intellectually lazy" will appear in his mirror, as well; but I CAN say that working through Hitchens's deeply honest exposes of the hypocrisy of religion QUA religion never fails to challenge me intellectually, for which I can only thank Hitchens's enormous intellectual ENERGY and integrity.

I am one secularist who does not consider religion to be inherently harmful or evil -- indeed I am quick to appreciate the forms that beauty can, and have, taken in religious and spiritual contexts and environments.

However, I join the other commenters in asking for some specifics that Hitchens and others have written, that wrongly stereotypes all religion.

I ask, because I have not read any of their books. But I have a little difficulty believing that people as intelligent as Hithcens or Dawkins would make such grossly inaccurate characterizations of religion.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/

I am one secularist who does not consider religion to be inherently harmful or evil -- indeed I am quick to appreciate the forms that beauty can, and have, taken in religious and spiritual contexts and environments.

However, I join the other commenters in asking for some specifics that Hitchens and others have written, that wrongly stereotypes all religion.

I ask, because I have not read any of their books. But I have a little difficulty believing that people as intelligent as Hithcens or Dawkins would make such grossly inaccurate characterizations of religion.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/

I am one secularist who does not consider religion to be inherently harmful or evil -- indeed I am quick to appreciate the forms that beauty can, and have, taken in religious and spiritual contexts and environments.

However, I join the other commenters in asking for some specifics that Hitchens and others have written, that wrongly stereotypes all religion.

I ask, because I have not read any of their books. But I have a little difficulty believing that people as intelligent as Hithcens or Dawkins would make such grossly inaccurate characterizations of religion.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/

I am one secularist who does not consider religion to be inherently harmful or evil -- indeed I am quick to appreciate the forms that beauty can, and have, taken in religious and spiritual contexts and environments.

However, I join the other commenters in asking for some specifics that Hitchens and others have written, that wrongly stereotypes all religion.

I ask, because I have not read any of their books. But I have a little difficulty believing that people as intelligent as Hithcens or Dawkins would make such grossly inaccurate characterizations of religion.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.com/

Professor,

What are you saying here? I don't see any argument supporting belief, any rational discourse, other than to simply accuse Mr. Hitchens and others of 'secular fundamentalism', 'black and white thinking' and 'generalizations.'

Such obfuscation is a sign of intellectual adequacy. But is it surprising to find that among believers?

"Have people who claim to be religious engaged in unseemly behavior?"

The statement though factual fails to separate the individual from the organization. Religions are organizations just like the US government is an organization. I hope but know better that the world will not see the whole country as being as morally bankrupt at the present administration.

"But people of faith have also been responsible for much good in the world: poverty relief, feeding the hungry, marching for civil rights or against war."

Again, you are not separating individuals from organizations. Al Capone operated a free soup kitchen and feed the hungry during the depression. He also is credited with murdering 235 people, many of them personally.

Religions are much closer to criminal organizations than charitable ones. Money given to religion is more likely to be used for stained glass than feeding the hungry.

Mr Bush has done an admirable job of making religion official. His administration is viewed as being criminal by many around the world and here at home. I'm not one of them but I understand those that do so. Mr Chavez might not be all that wrong when he said he could smell the brimstone where Mr Bush had recently stood.

Let me refer you to, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul AKA interpretation 1,501 of sacred scriptures. The question as to criminal or otherwise kinda jumps out at one once the Bible is understood.

This weeks topic like most all concerning religion can be addressed by asking the simple question. Was that God or Devil in that burning bush? Heaven forbid the whole tale and in turn all sacred scriptures are really hoaxes. Puts the kerbash on religion while leaving God and faith in God unchallenged.

I would tend to agree that fundamentalism of any stripe is dangerous, but I also argue that religion should be a non-issue where government, or governING, is concerned. The only exception, of course, is that the rights of all religions to BELIEVE (not behave) whatever they like should be guaranteed. Other than that, we should base all our reasoning on the tenet that "people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."

Dear Prof Balmer -

From what you have written, I get the distinct impression that you have not actually read the recent books by Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. How else to explain your complaint that their books offer only black and white arguments and no shades of gray, when - in -fact - each of their books address many, many shades of gray in making their anti-religion arguments?

You appear to exhibit the sorry trait of too many religionists, ie: supposedly speaking from authority while talking through your hat. So, let me ask you directly: have you in fact read The God Delusion, God is not Great, The End of Faith and Letter to a Xian Nation in their entirety? A simple yes or no answer will do.

If yes, please provide quotes of the black-and-white thinking you say they exhibit, and I will be more than happy to point out chapters, verses and page numbers within those 4 works that provide the gray that your eyes seem not able to read and comprehend.

If no, then please take your cheap shots somewhere else.