Sigh.... So many comments. I personally like the ones taking the so called moral high ground. Your no better then the ones who are celebrating his death. These trite attempts to look and sound superior to those yelling in the streets come off as smug, self righteous and fake. It is with out any doubt that I am guilty of this also. There also no better indicator of this then the fake MLK quote above. So many latched on to it as flag showing their moral high ground that when pointed out as a fake. It showed many to be the hypocritically moral bankrupt sheep that they were.
The questions raised with his death will be asked for years to come long after we are gone. The only true answer is the one you give yourself. These are my opinions no one else's.

1. Was his death necessary? I can not completely answer that. It is my hope the Seal Team that went in were trying to capture him but in the course of the fight they had to kill him. If so than yes it was necessary to keep team members from being killed. The down side to that is they will make him a martyr and become a focal point for more violence but the possible up side is in doing so the terrorist groups will rush to have their response to be as quickly as possible and expose them selves. Allowing governments to find and capture these cells or destroy them.

2. Was it Justice or Revenge? Again my opinion is it's both. I have heard that you can not use justice as revenge or that if there is a hint of revenge than its not justice. I respect that line of thinking even though I believe it to be wrong. No matter how much we want to think other wise the human race will almost always revert to the eye for an eye system of law if everything else falls apart. It is only after the rebuild do we try to "Improve" the law. We are a violent short sighted race but that is what works for us.

3. Was he still a major leader in Al Qaeda? I think so. For years we thought he was hiding in a cave somewhere and as such his communications with other members and groups would be slow and ineffective. No we found him in a large house and compound. Well equipped with security and high walls, computers and other electronics and luxuries. This is not someone cut off from their group. This is someone well financed and in control.

4. Should we be celebrating his death? This is a moral conundrum. Are we truly celebrating his death or are we celebrating still being alive? This is a man who has and had planned the death of thousands. Mostly for just believing or thinking differently than he did. We never truly knew where he was going to target next but when it happened people died. Some would say we should never celebrate the death of a human. I would ask why not? I would love to live in a place where there was no evil. A place where war and violent death did not happen. Its a nice dream. But it is not reality. If there is a heaven and hell I doubt there is a Demon or Satan that can match the cruelty, hatred or violence that one human can enact on another and no Angle or God that could enact the kindness and caring and love of one human to another. If you can not celebrate his death. Then Celebrate that he can no longer plan to kill you. Someone may take his place but for now there is one less doing so.

5. He has been dead for years.. For those that think or believe that. Please take this the right way. I'm going to to group you with the Birther and Truther idiots. While ignorance is curable. Stupidity is not and while I will honor your right to believe and say whatever you want. Do not act surprise when afterwords I give you a crayon and tell you to go play in the corner.

These are my opinions. No one else's. I reserve the right to change them as time goes by and i ether get wiser or dumber or more info on the subjects or even brain damage if I'm not already. (You never know)

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^It's a fake quote. Someone on reddit spotted it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar
chive/2011/05/out-of-osamas-death-a-fake-quotation-is-born/238220/
The real quote goes: “Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” –Martin Luther King, Jr.


It seems depending on the source. This one's fake as well:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/

Says it's actually:

"Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." MLK Jr.

Very rarely does someone fit squarely into an ism.

*Wanting corporations to pay taxes is not conservative. Not liking having to pay taxes is human. I'd feel much better about paying taxes if they weren't being dumped into corporate coffers through bailouts, subsidies and no-bid contracts.

*Social welfare is an attempt to limit the damage caused by our economic system. Our particularly ugly American version of capitalism (whose destruction cuts across all ideological lines) creates unemployment, low wages, inflation, and dramatic economic disparity. No amount of self determination and bootstrapping will end these systemic problems. You can argue the merits and effectiveness of individual social welfare programs, but at the end of the day, the problems they were created to remedy will still exist. If we restructured the system to be more beneficial to labor, there would less need for these kinds of band-aids.

*Small government and efficient government are two different things. "Small" is a purposely vague and arbitrary term. Powerful interests like "small" inefficient, ineffective governments, because they are easy to control. I'd like our government to be as big as it needs to be in order to be efficient. No bigger, no smaller.

*There are other lefties that support nuclear power.

*Everyone loves the constructive, creative side of the free market. It's the economic class war that results from unregulated markets that causes all the problems. In order for Trump to have his billions, other people are going to have to live in poverty to support his lifestyle. The free market is a system of winners and losers, opulence and suffering. You can't have one without the other.

*Optimism and pessimism are present on all sides of the spectrum. I am pessimistic about the times we live in, but optimistic about the future, because things have steadily become better for us since the dawn of humanity. As MLK said, "Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

*Conservatism doesn't have a lock on theism. Liberalism doesn't have a lock on atheism. While Protestants, Evangelists, Mormons and Muslims are usually socially conservative, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists and Unitarians are usually liberal. Conversely, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and the neo-conservative movement they inspired are atheist in nature (although their dogmatic, pie-in-the-sky economic views are a faith of sorts).

Thanks for the promote.... I do think it is a wind up

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
God, bless him, he doesn't know which way is up does he. Or this is a brilliant wind-up. Either way, genuinely categorising gingers as a race is hilarious.

*promote

I know what you mean. I think it is the Drama Club/Theatrical Persona. Those kids sometimes never stop "actingperforming". Make that "bad acting".


>> ^DarkenRahl:

Something about her rubs me the wrong way, but kudos to her for being comfortable in her own skin. That's tough for everybody.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Only if they show some sign they are trying to learn. Otherwise they deserve to be mocked.


@MaxWilder But when has mocking ever been a successful tool for social change? Take Sarah Palin as just one example. She's mocked publicly on pretty much a daily basis yet you don't see her changing her opinions, do you? What you do see is people rallying to defend her from the "lib-tard smear campaign." And from there it just degenerates into name-calling and and rhetoric and there's no real dialogue about any issue. I don't think mocking help matters at all and in most cases just makes it worse.

@AnimalsForCrackers

I'd ask kindly that you respond what I write and not whatever "hidden meaning" you think my message has--there is none. I write as clearly as possible but if there is some ambiguity about what I wrote, how about you just ask me my opinion rather than make off-the-wall accusations and assumptions? Also, I'll ask once again (you'll remember from the last thread we had a discussion in), could you put an @ in front of my name when you respond to my posts so I get an email that tells me you're commenting about me and I can reply (thanks for the heads-up @bmacs27)?

MLK never insulted or condescended towards those he opposed. He advocated dialogue to promote change, not name-calling. He inspired people to find their commonalities, not focus on their differences. He did organize people to change the status quo and he did it without the need to be "militaristic" in any sense of the word.

I agree with you that secularists would be a great replacement name for atheists who believe the things you talked about (people should be free to practice religion, but it shouldn't invade politics or religion). But that's not what Harris and the rest have been talking about recently--as I demonstrated by doing you the courtesy a less-than-5-minute Google search and finding those three quotes/talks and pointing out what Harris said in this video clip.

Given the ease with which I found those it should be no problem for you to do me the same courtesy and send me links showing the three gentlemen expressing the views you claim to be their true position (there is in fact one video here on the Sift from Dawkins giving an interview in the UK--sorry, can't seem to find it in the search at the moment--from about 4 years ago where he puts out such a stance, but more recent comments seem to indicate that he's moved away from tolerance and more towards open hostility).

On a side note, what exactly is "religion" doing to "your country" (I'm guessing the US)? Are the Jains destroying the separation of church and state? How about those Quakers, can you imagine the damage their doing? And let's not even get started talking about the Buddhists. You accused me of not using words accurately, but I get the sense you're not using the word "religion" accurately. I think (feel free to clarify) that when you say religion what you really mean is fundamentalist Christians who believe the US in a "Christian nation" are ruining the USA. And that's fine, if you believe that, but let's not confuse a very vocal minority of religious believers with "religion."

Why don't I rail against religion? Because my position is that religion is not the problem (as I think I've told you in other threads). I've said repeatedly that religion is a tool that can be used for good or for evil and that the challenge for religions in the 21st century is going to be to try to change themselves so that they maximize the good and minimize the potential for evil. Are bad things done in the name of religion? Yeah, all the time. That doesn't de facto make religion bad, though. But I will absolutely criticize specific actions which I think are wrong, like I did on this other vid--I'm an equal opportunity critic.

You perceive religion as a threat, apparently. I don't. That's the difference between us. I'm happy to hear your views on why you think it is a threat. I'd be even happier if you listened to mine on why I don't think it is without getting either hostile or emotional.

SD, congrats, I thought it'd be a given that words can have more than one meaning. I specifically said common usage for a reason, as in, the meaning the average person would be most likely to derive from the word. Keep playing semantic games to push this retarded narrative of yours. I just figured you could be more precise when describing other people's intent instead of lazily tossing around generalized blanket terms which end up meaning different things for different people. By your own definition, any one person who is not some apathetic nihilist, who has any interest in shaping the future of the world in the human marketplace of ideas (I hate using that phrase but it is apt) is basically a "militant".

MLK, to use your flawed example in a previous argument, was one militant motherfucker for daring to change the status quo and it's unsurprising that there were people like you, not racists, just tone trolls, saying the exact same thing.

Here's a good word, secularist. Was that so hard? Put "atheist" in front of that and at least you have something accurate. Expressing a personal desire to see religion gone and supposedly attempting to destroy it on those grounds are two different things. The New Atheists are of the former; they think it has no place in governance or science. New Atheism was a label foisted upon them by the media that ended up sticking, it was never something they came up with, there's nothing new about their form of atheism as they have all but given up exasperatedly trying to say so and disown the label. They think people should be free to practice religion in private and certainly want people to be educated about them in schools, via comparative religion. The fact that I even have to mention this just shows how uneducated you are on their positions. Out of context quote-mining is worthless when they have expanded on what they actually mean by those quotes in exhaustive detail to AVOID the very confusion you are trying your very hardest to sow. They are actively trying to minimize its status through education, not outright destroy it.

It's pretty clear to me what your intent is. You're trying to smear any atheist who dares not keep it to him/her self. You're too worried about atheists merely speaking out, yet I hear nothing from you about the vastly disproportionate amount of influence and entanglement religion (a bunch of imaginary ideas with no basis in reality used to control, kill, and enslave people for thousands of years) has in society and politics right now, fucking up my country in the process. Where's your indignation when it comes to that? Oh, but BOOHOO, we're sooooo militant. Give me a fucking break.

I'm not replying here to sway anyone through pleasant-sounding yet essentially hollow rhetoric, just to correct your nonsense.

I actually liked the number symmetry at the start, I used to doodle things like that back in school..so it had me captive. I really hate this practice of Christianity, the bait and switch. This is a common Christan practice which I hate. Offer you something with strings attached. It is explicitly manipulative and dishonest.

To me, the lessons of Jesus, like MLK or Gandhi, don't need any help being awesome. They especially don't need acts of deception to introduce it. Grace, love, and forgiveness is an easier sell than a potato slicer...it doesn't need tricks. Understand, I don't post this to be anti-christian or pro-agnostic humanist, but rather, to tell the story that I find this duplicitous behavior a shame to Christendom. It is an unworthy association to grace and redemption, putting it in the same category as network news, Nigerian emails, and traveling salesmen.

First off, major LOL, I'm an atheist, so thanks for assuming I'm Christian but I ain't.

Ok, I'm wrong. You're not religious but you certainly come off as excessively and disproportionately apologetic/sympathetic towards it. Sort of an anecdote that being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean one can think clearly about all things, but is that because I've been unable to understand you or is that because you've been unable to properly lay-out-on-the-table your position?.


I believe Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and those like them are doing atheists everywhere a disservice with their absolutist language (i.e. all religious people are crazy, stupid, etc., all religions are evil, etc., and so on and so forth). This makes atheists everywhere look like some kind of reverse hate-mongers.

This is a modification of your previous statement that they were just as fundamentalist as those they criticize, which I think is a tad more reasonable but still way off the mark. Please show the evidence that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, or Dennett is as fundamentalist and hateful as the religious fundamentalists they criticize (or have made blanket statements about all religious people). This is a statement you made earlier and you should have no problem backing this up. I'm pissed off because you're carelessly saying stuff like this as if its an established fact. It is not. You have all your work ahead of you.

Also, Dawkins et al. do NOT just run around crudely saying ALL religious people are stupid, deluded, or idiots. This is a strawman. They reserve their scorn of the religious mindset in proportion to their nastiness/harm to society. They're very careful to not make blanket statements regarding those who, through no choice of their own, were brought up religiously and have not been able to shake it off.

Yes, people who believe things for which there is no evidence ARE deluded, irregardless of the offense taken at such a statement. You should already understand that these men value truth over comfortable lies, and when informing someone of their delusions (for example, taking calls from a religious listener on a radio station) they (with not the not surprising at all exception of Hitchens) tend to be very explicit in explaining that they aren't being contemptuous or disdainful when they say say this, it is simply the truth. They do not just outright rudely call people idiots or morons. I'd like to see an example of this as I've never seen it.


It is exactly the kind of language of the fundamentalist opponents they profess to hate. Think about radical Islam--we're all Western devils because we don't subscribe to Sharia law, right?

Exactly, eh? Well then you should have no problem supplying some quotes with the full context (no quotemines) that measure up then. Regurgitating ignorant, second-hand blanket statements don't count.


The link I posted that compared Hitchens to Malcom X is spot on. Malcom X got a lot of media attention for his radical views, but in the end what did he accomplish? We don't celebrate Malcom X Day, you'll notice. Martin Luther King's Jr.'s message of cooperation and mutual understanding is what moved people's hearts on both sides of the divide and got us moving forward as a country, not Malcom X's divisiveness.

This comparison is vague as hell. One could replace Hitchens with most any influential/controversial thinker and it would still sound as if it were authoritative. Who the hell is saying Christopher Hitchens HAS to be that guy and why? There's plenty of room for all kinds, the MLKs and the Malcom-Xs. Basically you want Christopher to be something other than what he is.


Confronting and dealing with those people is going to require cooperation and dialogue between both the religious and non-religious people, between theists and atheists, between gnostics and agnostics.

You'll find no disagreement there from me. We only differ in our approach.


The failure of incredibly intelligent men like Hitchens to see this and their insistence on furthering the divisiveness on this issue is a great tragedy in my opinion. They don't see the forest through the trees. You want to prevent religion from dominating the political and cultural scene? So do a lot of religious people (the vast majority in most Western states). And their numbers VASTLY outnumber the atheists. Insulting those people who are clearly your potential allies hardly seems like a good way to go about getting them to see your point of view."

Do you really believe those leaders of the major religious institutions will relinquish their incommensurable power and malign influence on society if atheists (and the common people in general) just start fawning and kissing their asses and showing undue respect to these self-appointed, inherently corrupt, deluded arbiters of a lying morality? Pointing out their harmful ideology is hurting the cause of reason? You're placing far too much importance on tone and not truth.


When was the last time someone called you an idiot and you just sat there calmly and said, "You know what, you're right! I AM an idiot!

Provide some examples of the New Atheist's doing literally this and you may have a point. They don't. I have never once seen Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, or Harris calling saying "You're stupid, an idiot, a moron." UNLESS they (I really think only Hitchens would qualify here) were thoroughly provoked by an incredulous and ignorant bigot. More to the point, if one infers from the sum total of the reasoned arguments leveled against them that the only conclusion is that they must be an idiot for believing nonsense then that does NOT reflect on the person making the argument.

It seems as if you want moderate religious people to be coddled and not treated as the adults. Kid's gloves are for kids.


On a side note, I included the clip from Hitchens' brother because he points out the fact that Hitchens has built himself a tower, secluded himself inside of it, and is simply hurling missiles at anything that moves outside without bothering to try to engage in real dialogue.

And that's simply his opinion, in which he didn't really even attempt to qualify. Family members are probably the least objective source of information when it comes to the psychological state of another member that one could possibly ask for! Ask any practicing psychiatrist. The only reason this is authoritative to you at all is because it perfectly reaffirms a bias you've already held. This seems to be a common theme here.


I think the clip in this vid from the Glenn Beck show is the most telling of this, where Beck is trying to tell him that he doesn't consider Hitchens an enemy and Hitchens is actively trying to make Beck an enemy. He's not interested in real dialogue (to be fair to Hitchens, neither are many of his debate opponents)

<groan> He's not TRYING to make Beck his enemy. It'd be like me constantly provoking and demonizing and lying about someone and then wondering why he/she would have the nerve to not be my friend, it beggars belief! Beck has made himself an enemy of the reasonable, not the other way around and he most definitely isn't trying to "have a dialogue". I'm really starting to question why I even bothered responding at this point.


He's interested in making smart-alec comments and getting good sound bites--which is fine for an entertainer but doesn't get my respect for him as a thinker.

He loves a good debate, why is this surprising? It is what he is good at and his life's blood. Being entertaining does not by fiat exclude the substance of his arguments, which he is able to deftly supply in spades with incredible recall and erudition. Since you haven't argued the substance but merely the style in which its delivered (and shown yourself to have not even bothered to read their written works before you impugn your own personal bias onto them), you basically have just openly admitted that it isn't substance you place importance on in a good thinker but TONE. Well, to that I say, good luck.

Thanks, in hindsight, I don't like my tone. I would rather live in a world of little conflict and shouting...and there I go shouting and reacting in anger. O well, only human I guess.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Our president that embargo japan and tried to get us more involved in WW2 was "liberal"...not "conservative". There are so many over generalizations and factual errors here it is embarrassing. And trying to compare the actions of nations to the actions of religions is a farce. Historically speaking, war mongering is the start of more wars than pacifism. Rome was always attacking barbarian tribes preeminently so they wouldn't become a problem later...only for them to become a major problem later because of all the blood spilled. It later slaughtered hundreds of thousands of "Christian", only to later become a Christian nation...that then slaughtered other religions.

Violence begets violence, not the other way around. Sure, being passive sometimes enables some jerk off to get some footing and make his mark. But that is far better than everyone being a violent jerk off. A war every now and again against the embedded strongman, imo, is much better than constant war. Moreover, this is all just conjecture on the way nations work...religions are a different, far more fragmented. Off the top of my head I can name 30 different Christian denominations. I only know 2 main Muslim ones, but I am sure they have just as much deviation as Christians on the different Fatwas they hold to.

Edit: Also, what the fuck is his point? Violence is the answer? While sometimes it is the only option left on the table, it certainly isn't an answer, when the cause your trying to cure IS VIOLENCE (YOU FREAKING MORON). While there are situations were mutual threats of violence keep violence at bay (cold war), it still FREAKING SUCKS TO LIVE IN THE FREAKING COLD WAR (YOU FREAKING MORON). The REAL brave person does what MLK does and lay down in the street and let them kick you, or do what Jesus did and let the Crucify you. If you want the world to change, then you have to change yourself first. This guy prescribes the sickness to fight the sickness (you freaking moron).

right on brother

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Our president that embargo japan and tried to get us more involved in WW2 was "liberal"...not "conservative". There are so many over generalizations and factual errors here it is embarrassing. And trying to compare the actions of nations to the actions of religions is a farce. Historically speaking, war mongering is the start of more wars than pacifism. Rome was always attacking barbarian tribes preeminently so they wouldn't become a problem later...only for them to become a major problem later because of all the blood spilled. It later slaughtered hundreds of thousands of "Christian", only to later become a Christian nation...that then slaughtered other religions.

Violence begets violence, not the other way around. Sure, being passive sometimes enables some jerk off to get some footing and make his mark. But that is far better than everyone being a violent jerk off. A war every now and again against the embedded strongman, imo, is much better than constant war. Moreover, this is all just conjecture on the way nations work...religions are a different, far more fragmented. Off the top of my head I can name 30 different Christian denominations. I only know 2 main Muslim ones, but I am sure they have just as much deviation as Christians on the different Fatwas they hold to.

Edit: Also, what the fuck is his point? Violence is the answer? While sometimes it is the only option left on the table, it certainly isn't an answer, when the cause your trying to cure IS VIOLENCE (YOU FREAKING MORON). While there are situations were mutual threats of violence keep violence at bay (cold war), it still FREAKING SUCKS TO LIVE IN THE FREAKING COLD WAR (YOU FREAKING MORON). The REAL brave person does what MLK does and lay down in the street and let them kick you, or do what Jesus did and let the Crucify you. If you want the world to change, then you have to change yourself first. This guy prescribes the sickness to fight the sickness (you freaking moron).

right on brother

Our president that embargo japan and tried to get us more involved in WW2 was "liberal"...not "conservative". There are so many over generalizations and factual errors here it is embarrassing. And trying to compare the actions of nations to the actions of religions is a farce. Historically speaking, war mongering is the start of more wars than pacifism. Rome was always attacking barbarian tribes preeminently so they wouldn't become a problem later...only for them to become a major problem later because of all the blood spilled. It later slaughtered hundreds of thousands of "Christian", only to later become a Christian nation...that then slaughtered other religions.

Violence begets violence, not the other way around. Sure, being passive sometimes enables some jerk off to get some footing and make his mark. But that is far better than everyone being a violent jerk off. A war every now and again against the embedded strongman, imo, is much better than constant war. Moreover, this is all just conjecture on the way nations work...religions are a different, far more fragmented. Off the top of my head I can name 30 different Christian denominations. I only know 2 main Muslim ones, but I am sure they have just as much deviation as Christians on the different Fatwas they hold to.

Edit: Also, what the fuck is his point? Violence is the answer? While sometimes it is the only option left on the table, it certainly isn't an answer, when the cause your trying to cure IS VIOLENCE (YOU FREAKING MORON). While there are situations were mutual threats of violence keep violence at bay (cold war), it still FREAKING SUCKS TO LIVE IN THE FREAKING COLD WAR (YOU FREAKING MORON). The REAL brave person does what MLK does and lay down in the street and let them kick you, or do what Jesus did and let the Crucify you. If you want the world to change, then you have to change yourself first. This guy prescribes the sickness to fight the sickness (you freaking moron).

At least I understand code pink, a bunch of women against the wars.
This, whatever this is, is just a bunch of flag sucking ugly Americans.

And on MLK day ? Really ? Why not just lynch some people ?
That's so fucking racist.
Fuck you.
You fucking cancer.

If I get angst and need some existential reassurance I cry to MLK's last speech usually around dawn.

/flame on
/fuck you all
/yes, goverment sucks, but what YOU ARE DOING RIGHT THERE IS WRONG.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Stephen Colbert, Glenn Beck, MLK, King, speech, 828, I have a dream' to 'Stephen Colbert, Glenn Beck, MLK, King, speech, 828, I have a dream, incrazing' - edited by calvados

Glad to hear everything's okay in RL!

So, to answer your first question, yes, I have read the Bible and many Buddhist sutras (particularly the Lotus Sutra). I'm familiar with some parts of the Koran, but have not read it in its entirety. What knowledge I have of Hinduism comes from Hindu friends.

Your interpretation of these religious texts is that they promote an obedience to a God or gods. For sure the Buddhist sutras do not, as most sects of Buddhism do not believe in sentient gods per se but in an innate (non-sentient) life force that we all share. But leaving that issue aside, I don't see how you can't have both themes (love thy neighbor/obey god). You couched it as an "either/or" solution, but why does it have to be? There's no logical reason why you can't follow your individual deity and treat other humans with compassion and respect. In fact, in most cases the themes go together--by treating other people with compassion and respect you are following the commands of your deity.

But let's take it further than that. I'm just going to quote you here: Of course you dont have to [interpret the Bible that way], and most religious people dont, read or interpret it that way. Wouldn't you agree that if most people don't interpret the Bible as a form of control, then really your interpretation is not the representative of Christian belief? For certain some people do interpret those religious texts as you have-- fundamentalists, for instance. But I would hardly consider them the majority of religious people or the average representative of religion. In short, just because you’ve interpreted a particular religious text in a particular way, it doesn’t mean your interpretation is by any means “correct” or mainstream.

On a side note, I agree with you that there's a lot of f'd up stuff in many religious texts. Take the Old Testament for example and the bloodshed and wars described within it. However, we’re looking at religion as a whole--not just superficially at the religious text but how that text is interpreted and how the people who follow that religion conduct themselves in daily life. One problem with this, as I mentioned in the last post, is that the most vocal nutcases are usually the ones that you see in the media and not your "average" religious person, so it is easy to form a biased perception of virtually all religions if you’re not associating with members of that particular religion on a daily basis. If you ask the majority of Christians what the major theme of the Bible is, you’ll almost certainly get some answer regarding love and redemption—not your interpretation or violence and control.

To address your second question about empirical evidence about the benefits of religious belief--there's lots. I don't have time now to find all the links. You’ll just have to Google it. I've seen the studies--legit ones on both physical and psychological health published in JAMA and other peer-reviewed sources--and they were enough to convince me. Very few counter-examples have been published with the exception of a recent one in 2010 that showed a correlation between religious belief and obesity, but it was such a small sample size that it could have been a chance finding or attributable to other factors (it drew its participants predominately from African-American /Hispanic communities which typically have worse health-care access than other ethnic groups).

Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at your next argument about MLK. You seem to be stating that it wasn’t MLK’s religious beliefs that prompted him to take action. All I need to do to refute this is point you to any biography of the man or his numerous speeches where he clearly states that his religious beliefs have led him to believe in both the moral imperatives of equality for all people and non-violence as a means of achieving this. Was religion the thing that made him what he was? Absolutely. Same with Ghandi. And Mother Theresa. And the Dalai Lama. And a host of other people who have attempted to or succeeded in changing the world for the better.

Next, let’s talk about the Hitchen’s challenge. I find the challenge ridiculous. Why should religion have to be somehow separate from daily life? All religions are deeply concerned with secular life—with how we live and act. Furthermore basic psychology tells us we don’t act because of any one reason but due to a complex interaction of many reasons, some of which are conscious and some unconscious, and which in the end are in our own self-interest. Hitchen’s challenge is a straw-man argument—replace religion with some other construct such as democracy or music and you will be equally unable to find anyone who meets that challenge (by promoting democracy you protect your own rights; musicians may love music but even they need to sell songs in order to pay the rent and will compose for money).

I think equally ridiculous is the argument that things such as genital mutilation have no other possible explanation or cause than religion. Wouldn’t misogyny be a much better and more rational explanation than religion? Clearly religion is used to fuel the misogyny but it would certainly be a mistake to assume that the misogyny couldn’t exist without religion. Let’s take another example—the Spanish Inquisition. The cause of that tragic slaughter was clearly secular in nature—having finally wrested the southern part of the country from Muslim rule, Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unify a country in which many different religions co-existed. In short, religion didn’t cause the Spanish Inquisition; plain old political power-struggles did. Religion was simply the vehicle through which it was carried out.

And this is really what I’ve been saying all along—that religion is not, as you keep painting it as, the cause of humanity’s problems. It is a tool—a tool that, can be used for great good or great evil. As the folks at religioustolerance.org state: “Religion has the capability to generate unselfish love in some people, and vicious, raw hatred in others. The trick is to somehow change religions so that they maximize the former and minimize the latter.”

Later on, they go on to state that they feel that religion overall has a positive effect on society. That pretty much sums up my view of religion. If you do away with religion, you throw out the baby with the bath water. You lose the Martin Luther King Jr.’s, the Ghandi’s, the Mother Teresea’s, the Dali Lama’s of the world. It’s too a high a price to pay. For me, it’s all about dialogue—talking with others, getting them to see the common ground we all share, respect each other, and, as they said on their website maximizing the good and eliminating the bad.

As long as we keep talking—as you and I have been doing through these threads--we will keep moving forward. But I believe the instant dialogue ends—the instant you demonize the” other” and refuse to engage with them--you’ve planted the seeds of the next conflict: the next Spanish Inquisition, the next Bosnian massacre, or the next 9/11.