The End of Faith by Sam Harris, has anyone read it?

[seaglass]

I just picked it up last night because I heard part of a talk he gave on C-Span a week or so ago and I have been questioning my beliefs (or really trying to sort out if I have any).

I thought this was an interesting quote:

"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance....

By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally."

Isn't it enough to say that not fully accepting the religious texts while not fully rejecting them betrays both faith and reason?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Great book. Yes, religious moderates "provide cover" for the nutjobs.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Well, there are atheist fundies who like to be judgemental and obnoxious.

I don't think any group of people is immune to trying to beef up their arguments with brash language even as they are criticizing others for doing so.

I'll give you a case in point: months ago Skinner posted a message to the various religious DU groups talking about using the groups respectfully and being respectful of others...the Christian group was fine with it, the new age group was fine with it, but guess who had a problem with it and got into a big argument with Skinner? One of them ended up tombstoned and a bunch of the rest spent a time sulking about it by posting her avatar in their signatures and stuff.

[Taxloss]

3. You carry on enabling theocracy then, LoZoccolo.

The atheist minority, with its vast network of buildings, organisations and wealth, will spare you when we come for the others.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Somehow I'm not counting on it.

[Taxloss]

8. Oh, mentioning atheist dictators now?

What a pitiful, transparent, and worn-out sidestep.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Huh?

You said:

The atheist minority, with its vast network of buildings, organisations and wealth, will spare you when we come for the others

And I give you four examples of an atheist minority not sparing people, and that's sidestepping?

[Taxloss]

11. Your sarcasm meter needs a bit of work.

What I meant to say was, criticise the atheists when we're in power, like you Christians are anyway.

Is that all? Or would you like me to name four Christians who were mass murderers to "prove" my point?

[LoZoccolo]

13. Neither my religion nor your philosophy has anything to do with this.

I simply said, and you can go back and read it, that no group is immune to being obnoxious. I did not say that only atheists are, nor did I say that they were more so than Christians, so I do not have to prove it with more than one example.

[Taxloss]

15. You're quite right that no group is immune to being obnoxious.

However, the Christians are overwhelmingly in power and dominate most aspects of public life. Also, the group in ascendance is a particularly brutal and obnoxious one that believes atheists and non-Christians have no right to US citizenship. They would probably pack us off into camps if they had the chance. You are apparently comfortable with this because you are a Christian - and I regret to say that your religion has everything to do with this.

The failure of American liberal Christianity to confront the right-wing Dominionists is shocking and liberal Christians should be held to account for it.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Actually, by that logic, atheists should be held to account for it.

The very formation of the religious right was in reaction to communism and it's officially-imposed (by force and death) atheism.

[beam me up scottie]

39. The formation of the religious right is our fault???

:spray:
:rofl:

Congratulations, you've really outdone yourself this time!

That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week and I work with freepers!

Read a fucking book sometime or at the very least get rid of whatever source provided you with that idiotic piece of revisionist history.

[LoZoccolo]

61. That's not what I said.

It's not that you miss crucial details of my arguments that bothers me so much as how markedly incurious you are about what I really intend to say when I call you on it.

[beam me up scottie]

62. You're not worth debating, Ed.

You bait the other kids and run and tattle to mommy when one of them kicks your ass.

[LoZoccolo]

66. No I don't.

I generally don't beg people to believe me, or to not twist my argument. If someone really wants to understand what I was saying or portray it correctly, they'd more than likely ask me for it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. Officially imposed atheism?

That would be in Albania, wouldn't it? The only state that imposed atheism. So you're saying the American religious right rose up in response to what happened in Albania? Wow, who would have thought such a small country could have had such an effect.

[LoZoccolo]

73. Didn't say that. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. You said "communism and its officially imposed atheism"

and I'm pointing out that the only place that was communist, with officially imposed atheism, was Albania. You claim that officially imposed atheism led to the creation of the religious right - I presume you meant in America. So your claim is that Hoxha's policy in Albania led to the creation of the religious right in the USA. It's a bizarre claim, that I don't think anyone else would accept.

[LoZoccolo]

76. I did say that.

But I didn't say that Albania alone was responsible for the religious right.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. No, but it's a fact that Albania was the country where atheism was imposed

So your talk of officially imposed atheism, enforced by punishment and death, must refer to Albania.

eg "These groupings remained stable until the Communist government outlawed religion in 1967, making Albania the world's only atheist state. Freedom of religion was restored only in 1989-90." http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_42.html - quoting "Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture & Daily Life"

[LoZoccolo]

78. Insisting that Albania is the only state that persecuted religion...

...on the basis that it was the only one that completely officially outlawed religion is a little bit like saying that the governments in the US can impose religious restrictions all they want because "officially" they have the first amendment saying that they're against establishment of religion and thus are "officially" a secular government.

And you know what I'm talking about, so if you're going to pretend like I don't then I don't see any reason to continue this line.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. No, US governments can't impose religious restrictions

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - the US constitution is explicit about that. So it's not like that.

Now you're talking about persecuting religion; earlier, you were talking about officially imposing atheism, which is a different thing. But it's taken a few posts from me to get you to make that change - you could have just said 'persecuting' in the first place, or when I first challenged you on it.

[LoZoccolo]

85. I'm saying it's pretty much the same thing.

For one, you're wasting my time nit-picking on semantics, and I think I'll reserve the right to drop out when I feel like it for sake of my own time. I'll have you know that I don't think you any more clever for doing so.

There have been various laws restricting abortion and funding of abortion since Roe v. Wade. I don't think anyone would argue that this isn't imposing an anti-abortion agenda on people just because abortion is technically still legal. Likewise, these restrictions on religion are undertaken with the pretext that none of them are true.

[CarbonDate]

79. Wow, that's just staggeringly off base....

The religious right is a reaction to the loss of the Christians' right to oppress everybody else. That's what they're trying to get back, since that's what they've lost.

A number of court cases have ruled that, yes, atheists and religious minorities have rights as well, and no, Christians don't have the right to impose their religious beliefs on everybody else simply because they're the majority.

A good number of liberal Christians believe that we should have those rights, but that we shouldn't make too big of a fuss about them, especially around election time, since we might upset the dominionists. After all, it's our existence that allows the religious right to gain power. But I don't need to tell you that, now do I?

[BiggJawn]

83. What a crock of Kool-Aid...

Uh, I think the Religous Right's true reason for Existence has more to do with subjecting Earth to their OWN brand of "Every Knee...Every Head..." totalitarianism, all in the hope of cauing "armageddon" to happen and sitting back in glee while they watch everyone on thier personal shit-lists get burned by Jeebus.

I doubt it was a reaction to Communism as much as it is an imitation.

[LoZoccolo]

89. You should study the history of the religious right.

Go back all the way to the John Birch society, and also "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance, as well as why "IN GOD WE TRUST" was added to money. You see how my arguments rely on the record of history to some extent? It's much more compelling than trying to fabricate what goes on in other peoples' heads as I see fit. You will find great reward in this approach.

[CarbonDate]

92. Right.

Because nobody was grousing back in the 19th century about God being excluded from the Constitution, right? Religious fundamentalism wasn't invented until the godless commies took over in Russia, right?

Please. Communism was their latest rallying point, but it was hardly their first or their last. Their latest is Islamic terrorism, but there will be others. Abortion has been another, as was Bill Clinton (which goes to show that even if they don't have an enemy to hate, they'll invent one).

Also, when trying to make a point based on historical facts, it helps if you don't spend half the post talking about how you're making a point based on historical facts in an attempt to belittle your opponent.

[LoZoccolo]

21. Also, I take great offense to this.

They would probably pack us off into camps if they had the chance. You are apparently comfortable with this because you are a Christian - and I regret to say that your religion has everything to do with this.

This is the kind of inflammatory rhetoric which ultimately has the effect of empowering the religious right, which has grown markedly since the late eighties and were you to be successful at chasing Christians from the Democratic Party with these sorts of accusations, would continue to grow it by a full two-thirds.

[Taxloss]

29. In response to your first post:

I interviewed Reverend Lou Sheldon, head of the Traditional values Coalition (the transcript is in the Research Forum), and he made remarks quite strongly to the effect that since 93% of Americans are Christians, they automatically agree with a programme of putting prayer in public schools and banning abortion and the other RW shit. The remaining 7% can, quite literally to his mind, go to hell. So ... how has American liberal Christianity helped to counter this impression? Also, what exactly do you expect atheists to do? We're a tiny minority, Clean up your own house. They won't even listen to us. We're hellbound.

Furthermore, Socilism formed in part as a response to the hypocrisy of so-called "Christians" and so-called "Christian Charity" - the running of workhouses, the stealing of children, the endorsement of slavery and debtors prisons. So the religious right is a response to militant atheism - I doubt it. It's a transparent grab for power, not a response to anything. And if it was a response, it's simply their latest salvo in their war, the one they started.

In response to your second post:

Wooo, stop stating your philosophy, you're inflaming the right. What a pile of rubbish. Wooo, stop advocating medicare, you're inflaming the right. Wooo, stop opposing the Iraq war, you're inflaming the right. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion - that's in the constitution. Why don't you tell the gays to shut up as well, because some people might be offended by their views and behaviour? Or the Jews? But the atheists - that's different somehow. What atheists "want" is equality. If you theists want the 10 Commandments nailed up in public buildings, so be it. But all the other religions - and there are many - should have equal space. For the atheists you can put up something from Bertrand Russell, or Richard Dawkins, or Carl Sagan. That would be fair.

Your religion has everything to do with this.

[LoZoccolo]

30. You don't get it; this conversation is over. I tried.

I hope someone else can look at this and learn something, though.

[Taxloss]

31. So do I.

[manic expression]

18. Castro's not a dictator at all

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQDemocracy.html

...but besides that, I agree with you.

[LoZoccolo]

20. Go up to his face and call him ugly.

C'mon, I dare you.

[manic expression]

23. I can't

I don't live near him and it's really hard to travel to Cuba. Sorry.

(If you think Cuba is a dictatorship, read this next part. If not, disregard it, please)

Go up to Berlusconi's (sp) face and call him ugly. What's that, you can't? ITALY IS A DICTATORSHIP! ALERT THE ITALIAN REFUGEES! SET UP A BLOCKADE! WE MUST INVADE THAT COMMUNIST HELLHOLE! :eyes:

[mr blur]

4. It's an excellent book.

Oh dear, I hear the sound of poor persecuted christians heading this way.

[LoZoccolo]

7. I give you advice on how to be more compelling...

...and you give me this pitiful, transparent, and worn-out sidestep.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Speaking of pitiful ...

[LoZoccolo]

45. Same deal.

Plus I take it as a personal attack. Don't do this again.

[beam me up scottie]

46. "Don't do it again" ???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! :rofl:

You snipe at atheists and then whine about what you get in return?

Personal responsibility, LoZoccolo.

Look it up.

[LoZoccolo]

49. My comments were on-topic. n/t

[Marnieworld]

9. Thank you for explaining this for me

I really liked that poster and I noticed her absense and I missed her. Now I know the whole story because of you who ironically was clearly not a fan.

Perhaps I can share what I can suppose was her point but at least it would be mine. I think the non-believers are just coming out of the closet. With the advent of the internet we can connect to eachother in a way that we ever could before. Being a despised minority is not easy. It is very isolating and often frustrating. It is often implied that we have no morals and we are frequently attacked in the right-wing press, implied to not exist in most all official aspects of life. Some feel legitimate anger to the more fundamentalist groups that openly hate us. Some also just can't help but believe that so many beliefs are just illogical and that the devotion to them is ridiculous. It's all of this combined that makes people want to blow off some steam when they have a place to speak with those like them. I could see how someone would want to defend the right to have this release and the right to say their actual thoughts. If you truly believe that something is worthy of derision, and everywhere in life you can't voice this for fear of social ostracization, then you search for a place where you can express your thoughts and have the joy of an understanding audience.

But what do I know? I'm just a hateful atheist who can't behave,

[Goblinmonger]

41. You have got to be kidding me

I mean seriously, "the Christian group was fine...the new age group was fine." Yeah, guess why. Because you can still spew vile shit about atheists and not get into trouble. Don't believe me? Read the Utah cross threads and tell me that we started that. Tell me that the Christians were playing nice in those threads.

And BTW, I believe part of Skinner's post said that the rules were that we couldn't post about what somebody said somewhere else. Yet you just did. And I be you won't be kicked out. If I started to cross-post some of the idiotic, whining bullshit that you post in other threads, I am sure I would get in trouble.

[beam me up scottie]

42. You mean like bringing up his buddy C_ L_?

Yeah, several posts have been deleted for doing that.

I sometimes wonder how many other of his sock puppets still post here.

Especially when I see weaselly attacks on atheists like those.

[LoZoccolo]

44. Don't accuse me of that. I don't even know Cuban Liberal.

I don't think I've ever mentioned him. The least you could do when you make this kind of accusation is link to it, though that would still be against the rules.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Against the rules? Like when you used a ts'd atheist to attack us?

And attacked her when she wasn't here to defend herself?

:nopity:

[LoZoccolo]

50. What's there to attack?

Someone got tombstoned arguing about something that people in other groups were fine with, a verifiable fact. I didn't even mention her DU name! Did I spread a rumor about her or something? Well, no.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Actually, that's not why she was tombstoned.

But I wouldn't expect a weasel to concern himself with facts when he can use lies to his advantage.

[LoZoccolo]

54. There you go again.

You can say what you want to say without resorting to namecalling.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Okay there, Eddie Haskell.

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

43. Don't talk that way to me.

You can be firm without calling what I post "idiotic, whining bullshit".

[Goblinmonger]

47. Oh, but

obnoxious, judgemental, and brash are perfectly fine? Especially when said about someone who isn't here to defend herself? In case you have forgotten, those are your words.

on edit: I forgot to mention that we were "sulking." That's a nice one, too.

[LoZoccolo]

51. Yes, they are.

You could have very well said a roughly equivalent thing about my posts without resorting to the level of abrasiveness you did.

[beam me up scottie]

53. So you think that the rules don't apply to you?

We already knew that.

[LoZoccolo]

55. Not what I said.

There's a level of nuance that you may not be noticing.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Sure thing, Eddie.

Whatever you say.

[Goblinmonger]

91. My mistake and apologies

Let me reword my statement:

"If I were to post some of the abhorrent, abominable, bitchy, loathsome, nauseating, odious, repugnant, revolting, and sickening posts you have made in other forums, I would be kicked off."

In case you are wondering, all of the above are synonyms for "obnoxious" according to dictionary.com. So I will assume that I can freely use those to describe you and other christians without any complaints.

[BiggJawn]

84. You're starting to sound like a Professional Wrestler

"No! wasn't ME! I dunno HOW he got salt in his eyes! I'm INNOCENT!"
You can either try to counter me with FACTS, bust an alert cap on my ass, or put me on "Ignore", but if I think what you post is indeed "idiotic, whining bullshit", I'm gonna tell you so.

And you DO post idiotic, whining bullshit.

"...empowering the religious right, which has grown markedly since the late eighties and were you to be successful at chasing Christians from the Democratic Party with these sorts of accusations,..."
as a lame response to an assertation that the Religious Right, if allowed to would pack us Atheists off to concentration camps.

Your refusal to say "that's not TRUE!", instead of twisting the assertation into a "see? that shit costs us VOTES!" smokescreen makes me wonder if there might not be more than a little truth in our belief that we have camps in pour future once every knee statrs to bend?

[LoZoccolo]

86. My refusal to say "that's not TRUE!"...

...should actually make you wonder if I lend any credibility to your claim, or whether or not I think it's a useful thing to engage in a "no they don't" "yes they do" on something with scant evidence. I generally don't get involved in arguments where someone's putting thoughts and intentions in other peoples' heads. And yes I know about the dominionist article where they've found a few guys who want to do that, just like I pointed out that there's a few athiest dictators who have put tens of millions of people in the ground. It's a waste of time; that's why I passed over it.

[salvorhardin]

56. I haven't been drinking tonight

But I'm still having difficulty seeing what your post has to do with the OP, Sam Harris or anything else for that matter.

From where I'm sitting it looks like your post was nothing more than an opportunistic poke at the atheists.

Was the OP disrespectful of Christianity? Is Sam Harris disrespectful of Christianity? Did either of them even remotely mention Modem Butterfly? I don't think so on all counts.

And yet you've spent this whole thread baiting the atheists and then whining when they give as good as they get.

Oh, and since you're going to accuse me of being childish and using "brash language" anyway...



Happy new year.

[LoZoccolo]

58. I think you might be missing the intention of the OP. n/t

[salvorhardin]

63. And what was the intention?

I thought the OP's intention was to post an interesting and mildly controversial quote (which she may or may not have agreed with -- I'm thinking not) from a book for discussion. Yet you decided to go off on a tear against atheists over the expression of an idea. I'm still failing to see Modem Butterfly's relation to any of this or why you should suddenly scream persecution and bad manners when the atheists that you vilify have the nerve to say, "Hey now bud, just one damn godless minute..." This surprises you?

[LoZoccolo]

64. To ask a question about why it wasn't stated another way.

I brought up the idea that no one is immune from falling into the habit of inflammatory rhetoric, and provided an example. As I've said before, I did not accuse all atheists of such.

[salvorhardin]

67. So you think Sam Harris was being inflammatory?

Interesting. Because I just see him as stating an idea. But obviously, as others here have noted, you seem to have a problem when ideas inconsistent with your own are discussed. I would suggest it's a big world and you'll be a lot happier when you come to accept that there are many who do not think as you. And you know what? That's not inflammatory, that's a fact.

[seaglass]

75. It wasn't necessarily that I disagreed, it is more that I haven't

been convinced and it seemed the statement could stand alone without the middle clause.

Believe me I wasn't trying to stir up old battles.

I have spent my entire life straddling this fence between believing and not-believing and I don't want to do that anymore. So, I'm just trying to explore some ideas.

[salvorhardin]

90. I didn't think you were trying to stir up old battles

Like I mentioned, I thought it was an interesting idea that deserved to be explored and I was pretty sure that's why you posted it. I personally have a lot of qualms about Sam Harris' book. I haven't read it yet but from what other of his writing I've seen he starts with a really good foundation and then I think just completely veers off into left field. There's another writer I normally enjoy, this one a believer, who does that on a regular basis too. David Brin.

Anyway, aside from a handful of people I think most theists and atheists here at DU are capable of having intelligent conversations about matters of faith or non without feeling that just because an idea counter to their beliefs or lack thereof is floated it doesn't mean that they are under attack. Unfortunately it does seem that just a few zealots would rather prevent discussion between believers and nonbelievers and that's a shame. As the world becomes an increasingly diverse place, as the U.S. mirrors this, we're going to need secular government more than ever and unless believers and nonbelievers of all stripes come to together I fear we're very much at risk for theocracy.

BTW: If you'd like to discuss this kind of stuff without the nattering gnats, come on over to my site (see my sig). It's much slower and the population is about 98% strong atheists (who do strongly act out against the religious fundamentalists). If you agree with our mission statement and don't mind a bunch of uppity atheists then chances are you'll fit right in.

[beam me up scottie]

59. ROFLMFAO !!!

:spray:

[BiggJawn]

82. Being "Respectful"...

There's a wide gulf between admonishing someone about "being respectful" and telling them they are no longer allowed to refer to somebody's illusion as a "Faerie Tale", because it's "disrespectful".

And not all of us who "sulked", as you so maturely put it, rebelled by putting the avatar of She who Shall Not be Named in their sig lines.
I'll own being obnoxious and judgemental, but that bullshit Fundy label belongs solely to those who think they hear a Sky Spook telling them what to do.

[LoZoccolo]

87. Actually, it also belongs to certain stock analysts.

There are those known as "fundamentalists" and others known as "technicians", though a lot of them fall somewhere between the two. So you're wrong.

[Dr.Phool]

5. I picked it up, but haven't started it yet

The DVD, "The God who wasn't there", has a good interview with Harris, and a few others.

[Marnieworld]

12. This sounds good to me.

I often say that I would be willing to live in a Christian Theocracy if they were actually following the teachings of Christ.

Do you think we'd be condoning torture? Invading countries? Ignoring the Gulf Coast victims? Living with homeless in the street? Jailing drug addicts?

It would be a utopia. Unfortunately it's this ignorance that propels the fake Christians into power and maintains it. Most of the Christians in this country haven't read the Bible and they are ignorant of the good and the bad in it. They just follow what they are told, I'm a Christian=gays are bad as if that's all there is to it.

Sounds like a good book I'll check it out.

[fishnfla]

14. If the Bible was written by God, why is Shakespeare so much better

I love that thought

[onager]

17. An explanation for you...

:hi:

I read Harris' book and loved it. Finally, FINALLY, somebody came out and told the unvarnished truth. It sounds like the interview made the same point: yes, all too often, religious moderates/liberals function as Useful Idiots for the crazy fundie wings of their religions. That's especially true of the Two Spoiled Brats On The Monotheism Playground, Xianity and Islam.

You might also enjoy this excellent but little-known book. You can read the whole book on-line at the link:

As theologians, the Protestant reformers replaced the authority of the Catholic Church with the authority of the Bible, which they opened to the public. The inevitable but unforeseen result was that every individual who could read thought God could communicate directly with him.

Unfortunately, as recorded in the Bible, the voice of God often rambles incoherently like that of a slightly schizoid manic-depressive with delusions of grandeur.

Worse yet, his Protestant readers promptly splintered into numerous sects which agreed only on one point—they wanted to be separate. By 1650, there were 180 sects--all based on the Bible and each more dogmatically intolerant than the next...

From "The Story Of Stupidity" by James F. Welles, Ph.D.

http://www.stupidity.com/story1final/

[QC]

16. The forum rules, has anyone read them?

Purely religious threads, like this one, are not allowed in GD. They are supposed to be in -- Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! -- the religion and theology forum.

Besides, this guy got thoroughly hashed out and flamed over a couple of weeks ago. You're late to the party.

[seaglass]

24. So I posted in the wrong place - sue me. I guess we should

never talk about the 2000 election again because we talked about it 5 years ago:eyes:

[manic expression]

22. That is a faulty argument

religious moderates and fundamentalists disagree as much as anyone else. Much of the time, it is the fundamentalists who fail to follow the texts. Another thing is to "live by the letter of the texts" can mean 100+ different things to 100 people, so who is to judge which is right? The author assumes that to live religiously, one must read texts literally (a ridiculous argument) and that all religions are dogmatic (a completely incorrect statement). Lastly, moderates put secular knowledge TO their faith, therefore doing service to both.

I haven't read the entire book and so I can't say anything about that, but that argument you posted is quite incorrect, to say the least.

[onager]

25. Try telling a Fundamentalist...

...that it's "ridiculous" to read Sacred Texts literally and see what kind of reaction you get.

[manic expression]

26. I'm aware they disagree with me

but I really don't care. You shouldn't either.

That's not what this is about, however. I think we can agree that reading a text literally is NOT the only way to be religious (nor is it the best way), as the author suggests.

[InaneAnanity]

32. Pity you don't care

Because they are destroying the world.

what would you care about?

[manic expression]

34. OK

first, did you miss the part where I said "that's not what this is about"?

Read that again.

Secondly, NO. I don't care if fundamentalists disagree with me. I have my beliefs, they have theirs. If they want to throw their beliefs in my face, I will challenge them on it every time, but that does not mean I will factor them into my opinions...EVER.

I do think you missed the point in a big way. The point of this was that the author of that book insinuated that fundamentalists are the ONLY people who are truly religious, while people who use secular knowledge are "quasi-religious", and therefore bad for both influences. That is ridiculous and wrong and I outlined this in my posts. Read them.

[InaneAnanity]

69. I've read them

And you are wrong.

You can't pick and choose which dogma to believe. If you want to go and create your own faith, fine, do so, but then you aren't a Catholic. If you are a Catholic, then picking and choosing dogma is hypocritical and, as Sam Harris puts it, "quasi-religious."

[manic expression]

70. You are wrong

One can interpret and take something differently than someone else. That is the reality of many religious organizations.

[InaneAnanity]

71. Religion

has nothing to do with reality

[manic expression]

93. That is not true

it has everything to do with reality. Whether or not you agree with it, that is something else, but you cannot deny that it has everything to do with reality.

[seaglass]

27. Which faiths allow you to interpret the Bible how you choose?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, it's an honest question. I was raised as a Catholic and we didn't do much Bible reading but I do know that there were teachings in the Church and you had to believe them to be a Catholic. Maybe this is what Harris is talking about. All the Catholics who think it is OK for gays to marry, to be priests, or woman to use birth control or make their own reproductive choices or who engage in premarital sex give cover to the actual religion that doesn't allow for any of this. What are these Catholics who don't follow the teachings of the Church?

And I don't man to pick on Catholics, it's the only religion that I know a little bit about.

[manic expression]

28. Well, for starters,

many faiths do not use the Bible. Many faiths do not rely on a definitive text.

I hope you can follow this part, sorry if it's confused.

Catholocism is interesting because, unless I'm mistaken, people change opinions based on what the Vatican says. The thing is that many people who do follow the Bible reject Papal authority entirely. So, actually, Catholics are not following the Bible to the word when you ask one group, but other Christians are not following the Vatican and are not following the Bible to the word if you ask another group. That leaves us with different groups with different beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, especially because many of those groups are more progressive and allow interpretation.

The fact that there are many different groups shows the fact that one can interpret the Bible in many ways, so an atheist (or whatever the author is) saying being fundamentalist is the ONLY true way to be religious is absolutely ridiculous.

Catholics who don't completely follow the teachings of the Church are Catholics, or at least Christians. They can be Christian without being completely in line with the Vatican, can they not? I think that more progressive religious people should be lauded for their mix of secular knowledge and faith, not condemned for it.

I'm not Christian, so maybe you have a better idea of the realities of the Church. Hopefully I answered your question (but I don't think I did).

[seaglass]

33. Is it really different interpretations or different emphasis? Does

any Christian faith actually reject passages in the Bible or do they just gloss over them? Have you studied Bible-believing religions, I'm curious how you get your info.

I do realize that not all faiths use the Bible, it was intended as an example

[manic expression]

35. Simply different

Again, I'm not Christian, so you could ask someone with more knowledge, but I think I know what you mean.

There are different Bibles as well. The King James is really short in comparison to other Bibles. That makes a whole new ball game, as a faith can emphasize everything about their own little Bible.

Anyway, it is really mostly emphasis and what people find most important. If you ask 20 art critics what they think about a certain painting, you might get 20 different answers. It's very much the same with scripture, the Bible in this case. One person might take a certain passage to mean x, while another could take it to mean y.

That's just my take on it.

[Exiled in America]

88. Mine does.

:)

[ladjf]

36. Yes. It's an excellent book.

[grumpy old fart]

37. I've read the book and the central theme is important, IMHO

Every "moderate" religion gives cover to fundamentalists by affirming that it's perfectly reasonable tp shape one's worldview on superstition. Moreover, it affirms the notion that shaping public policy based on superstition is perfectly rational.

Until we get to the point that we are comfortable with forming public policy on secular human values, and not on the fantastic foundation of God(s), we are condemned to dealing with demon haunted people in a demon haunted world. Believing "a little" in superstitons and "some parts" of faith based texts provides no basis at all for attacking the more fundamentalist believers.

[beam me up scottie]

40. Yes!

Look at how many on the religious left help the fundies vilify the ACLU and atheists because of their commitment to uphold the separation of church and state.

Reichwing talking points are frequently posted on DU.

[onager]

65. Yep. A fine example is the "public square" meme.

That one is straight out of the Falwell/Robertson/Wildmon playbook. The code phrase used to be "a place at the table," back when the right-wing Fundies were beginning to ooze into politics.

Of course, what they really meant was "walk off with the whole damn meal and starve everybody else."

Similarly, a "place in the public square" is meant to bring up warm & fuzzy images of those poor persecuted Xians simply trying to participate in government, against the massive opposition of atheists and the ACLU.

This time, what they really mean is "take over the government and set up a theocracy." (And what they want to do is spelled out on many of their websites, lest anyone accuse me of atheist paranoia.)

We already know what can happen when a majority religious group seizes the public square. To paraphrase Heinrich Heine, they generally start by using the public square to burn books and end by using it to burn people.

[beam me up scottie]

68. I was just trying to convince

someone that the religious right is a bigger threat than the neo cons.

The Taliban didn't take over by force, they did it by scaring the people.

[CarbonDate]

81. I don't really make a distinction.

You may be expressing two different aspects of their extremist ideology, but they are, for the most part, the same people, as the two different aspects of the ideology are borne of the same world view.