Don't need to add the "sarcasm" check though. You, no, WE better mean every word of it.

I had a raging LMAO moment reading what BS that Hungary's Viktor Orban's said at Dallas' CPAC yesterday: "A Christian politician cannot be racist."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62431415

Right.... it's exactly racists, far-right fanatics like these people that organized religions of any significant size should be eliminated in the eye of a decent person, reglious or not.

Even though the current Pope Francis (very progessive for a Catholic) recently came up here in Canada for a “penitential pilgrimage” to say "sorries" to the natives that were forced into boarding schools for decades that tried to erase their history, culture, language, ripping children away from their parents by force and caused thousands upon thousands of unrecorded deaths, his actions & tangible response for reparation & restoration amounted to very little. He didn't have the courage to call it a genocide in public, but caught saying so in a hot mic in his plane ride back to Italy... NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Obviously.

We all as human being need to put organized religion, and the auxiliary religious fanaticism, where it belong, while not realistically possible to the dust bin (it's too useful a device for war, conflict, greed & power for those that seek them), but at least to a place where it does not harm. Right now, and since the dawn of time, organized religions all over the world did a lot of the opposite and never owning up to it.

*propaganda
*Equality

"To act you’re white, to work white jobs, to worship white Gods and find your place in the white system. But this doesn’t work for anyone unless they are a white male!!!"

Are you kidding me? Destroy the 'white power system'? Can you tell me where the headquarters of said organization exists? I'd like to have a word with them.

Racism exists, but not at the level this slideshow video and comments is trying to portray. There is no racial power system.

There are two systems that are killing our country.

Rich corporations/people looking to maintain their profit margin
Organized Religion

Good question, BSR.

I wasn't a Christian until I'm in my 30's. But throughout my 20's, I occasionally get asked if I'm a Christian whenever I was just being nice/helping people. So after a dozen times getting asked that, I went to a church event from a Christian friend and got involved. I only wanted to get baptized after I read the whole Bible cover-to-cover.

I really don't get attached to the church much, although I do go every Sunday & have fellowship 3, 4 times a month. Not getting attached in the sense that knowing church is like any organization with lots of people - it's natural their hearts & minds tends to go to the daily running of the church (Getting more people into church, donations vs expenses, etc.) and communal/social side of things more than the spiritual-growth side.

I'm more of a "Jesus Follower" type of Christian I guess? not impressed with organized religion, but I just agree and put myself into practicing what Jesus preach to people, his simple commandments: Love God & my neighbors. Looking at Jesus as a humanitarian philosopher perspective, I can't believe He doesn't want us to make this Earth a better place. He's all about understanding, accepting and instill love & respect into everyone...

It's crazy to see people using and twisting religion to turn this world into - pardon my French - merde... how is this what Jesus wants? There are way too many people who just want the benefit (getting into heaven? bragging right? think Christianity is superior than others?) without the effort... these we call the "free-gift (read: cheap-fakes) gospel" that really have zero value and zero contribution to the betterment of the world.

You said it right. Jesus placed the world on his shoulder, if I call myself a Christian and I don't carry the cross as He does... I'm just lying to myself and to the world.

I hope they start with him. ;-)

So, he thinks Russia has no churches!?! He thinks Venezuela is religion free?! Lol. What a maroon.
"If" they ever get power? Like 2008, when thousands of Christians were hunted like animals and murdered in the streets and organized religion was outlawed in America?....oh, wait....

UnChristian "Christians" like him are why people are fleeing religions like rats on a sinking ship.
The church is a bastion of pedophiles, racists, misogynists, and charlatans. I, for one, would support legal prosecution and even execution of the leaders of these evil cabals and most vile perpetrators from them, just like I would active members and leaders of NAMBLA, and the forfeiture of all church assets like any other criminal organization would see, they have each destroyed far more than one life, it's not unreasonable to think they should pay with their own. Just think of the dent that could make in the national debt and the criminals that would remove from our communities.

Even I, however, don't advocate (anti) religious warfare, what he's suggesting. I believe our legal system, properly and fairly applied, could easily and righteously eradicate most organized religions if only people didn't turn a blind eye towards their undeniable institutionalised crimes and sins.

Also, shouldn't any Christian hope they would be martyred, isn't that a free ticket into heaven in their belief system? Didn't Jebus tell them to turn the other cheek, not to strike first?

Upvote for exposure, not agreement

You know, I went on a roller coaster of emotions watching this.

First, I felt mildly amused by the lady who claims to be able to see angels.

Then I felt pity for everyone up there that seems to believe her.

After that I felt a bit of anger, because I remembered that this guy Bakker is an ex-con who swindled his congregation and possibly raped one of his secretaries and yet somehow here he is on TV again preying on people desperate to find meaning and hope in their lives.

Then I felt disgust as I remembered the news from the other day about the teen denied birth control from her Walgreens pharmacist because he claimed a religious objection to filling the prescription and that in many places in the U.S. it is perfectly legal for pharmacists to do so.

The only thing that eased my mind after this is that young people in the U.S. are non-religious in record numbers and that these numbers have steadily increased and will likely continue to increase going into the future. The quicker organized religion dies out, the better off we'll all be.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

Some people hold the constitution and the bible as infallible documents. Many of us sit on the sidelines and lament the stupidity of organized religion, whether it be political or spiritual.

Very, very interesting -- thanks for the sift!

I'd love to see more, specifically about the US / Cuba talks and the Pope's involvement. As an atheist, I tend to think of Catholicism / the Pope / organized religion in general as generally having a primarily negative influence on world affairs (Crusades, Inquisition, birth control, anti-condoms, molestation, homophobia, etc.), but negotiating peace and better relations between the US and Cuba is a pretty undeniably positive thing.

I knew Latin American countries were highly Catholic, but I kinda figured that some of the USSR anti-religious stance would have rubbed off on Cuba. I guess maybe it did, but the missile crisis and fall of the Berlin wall / end of the cold war was long enough ago that Cuba has greater freedom to make up their own minds on this sort of thing.

Enough so that perhaps the Pope's involvement was necessary, or at least very helpful, to act as a mediator between the two sides. Props where props are due.

Anyway, all quite interesting.

Once again, the Catholic Church is clearly and incontrovertibly guilty of being a criminal organization. Why in the hell have they not been brought up on RICO charges and had every penny they own in each country converted to public property? They are actually more guilty than NAMBLA, who at least admits who they are and what they do, rather than using their considerable power and influence to hide it and continue the abuse in 'secret', or protecting well known perpetrators from prosecution.
Fuck the church. Organized religion is one of the most disastrous ideas in human history.

It almost sounds like he is suggesting to keep an open mind and learn about other cultures, religions & mythology in order to understand those perspectives; and overall to be humble to the mystery: that we do not know.

In my opinion some of his opinions were a little contradictory - he doesn't believe in any sort of god or gods, but it seems that a wiser statement would be that he doesn't know, which would correspond with the "I don't believe in atheists" theme.

Furthermore, I honestly don't think that those who (in Hedges' words), "do not explore the religious impulse" are inhuman. Even if someone never explores it in their lifetime. In my opinion - the late bloomers who have disconnected themselves from all inclination of organized religion or spirituality, to find it on their own later in life might have a few more advantages than those that did not disconnect themselves from it at some point.

My personal preference is that I do believe in god because I want to believe in god. Whether it's a metaphor, completely abstract energy, a point in spacetime, a massive intelligent energy field that existed long before the big-bang, a life-force found only on Earth or the Milky Way or a fucking super mega alien technological consciousness program experiment or even a microscopic white dude flying on a microscopic magic carpet or all of the above and none of the above. I just believe even though my version of whatever creation/god is, is completely unidentifiable, it's everything and it's nothing.

I've always disliked organized religion. You are basically listening to some other person's 'interpretation' of a work that is open to many different points of view and following what they say blindly.

@newtboy

Wishful thinking on your part, Newt Dear. You both dearly want people to not want religion.

Billions of people choose religion. Some fake it. Some leave. Some hate it.

My brother grew up in a secular household and has been a devout Mormon for 40 years. I grew up in the same household, and find the idea of organized religion intellectually embarrassing.

Both of you are railing against the preponderance of evidence you are surrounded by. SOME people are drawn to religion. This is just a part of human existence.

I find it so odd that both of you want this fact to be incorrect. Humans create religions, which lead to churches. They have done it for millennia. How you can look at the evidence that surrounds you and say it isn't so baffles me.

It's all good. Just like my brother, you want to believe what you want to believe.

I don't try to argue my brother out of his dogma. So I'm going to stop trying to argue you guys out of your dogma.

I would say that example is a false dichotomy. You're never going to find a case in Palestine or elsewhere in the world that someone blows themselves up purely for the religious reasons. There are clearly political and social motivations at play in every terrorist attack.

This relates directly to my main point though. Some some pundits want to use a suicide bombing in the West Bank as proof that Islam is "evil" or "dangerous" without addressing the elephant in the room--that the Palestinians are living in the world's "largest open-air prison" (to use Chomsky's words) and are resisting what they see as occupation of their lands in any way they can. It is no where near as simplistic as the "Muslims good/infidels bad cuz Koran says so" argument that some people seem to want to make.

And let's be clear, I'm not saying there aren't passages in the Koran that are being interpreted by Hamas and others as justification for the use of terrorism as an acceptable form of resistance. I'm saying this isn't unique to Islam. During the height of fighting in Northern Ireland both sides were using the Bible to justify the car bombs, assassinations, and other violence that occurred during The Troubles (another complex conflict where religious, political, and social issues intertwined). Yet I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would claim that Christianity is "evil" or "dangerous" based on what went down in Northern Ireland. It is a great example, though, of how any organized religion can be mobilized to support evil acts.

See, I agreed with everything you said up until that last statement (that I quoted below).

All organized religions brutally and mindlessly suppress individual freedom. But lately the target de jour seems to be Islam. People like Sam Harris got off track when they forgot that the real target is the dismantling of all organized religion and focused almost exclusively on denouncing Islam--usually with obnoxious overgeneralizations and a complete lack of understanding how diverse Islam actually is.

And that's the major problem with the whole argument Dawkins and Maher are proposing (i.e. that you can't criticize Islam anymore). You can't criticise Christianity or Judaism or any other major religion without hugely overgeneralizing, either. Instead you need to target specific denominations within specific communities and how they practice the religion.

For example, are you upset about how "Christianity" has helped spread AIDS or protected pedophiles? Well then really you're really looking to criticize the Catholic church and it's stance on contraception and handling illegal activities within the church, not Christianity as a whole.

Upset with how gay people are viewed? Again, you're probably not looking to criticize the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and many other Christian denominations who have reformed in recent times to be accepting of LGBT members and clergy. It's not a Christianity problem so much as it is a problem of how specific people in specific places for specific cultural reasons interpret the texts of their religion.

Basically, I don't think it is a problem if people want to criticize how Islam is practiced in a specific context (say, for example, the use of female genital mutilation in some subsets of Islam in Africa). But I do think it is a problem when the speaker is simply set on demonizing the religion as whole rather than making a rational argument, for example overgeneralizing female gential mutilation (which actually pre-dates Islam and was incorporated into it later after Islam's rise of influence in the region) as an example of why Islam is evil.

Certainly people have the legal right to make such an argument (in the U.S. at least). However, I'm guessing most universities don't want to come across as looking in support of such ill-structured arguments that are more akin to tabloid magazine hit pieces than an actual intellectual argument which is grounded in facts and reason.

All that said, I have no inside information about the real administrative reasons why certain speakers have been declined/uninvited at specific college campuses.