Is religion all that bad?

[median]

One thing I find puzzling is the whole science versus religion debate.

Most scientists and skeptics will maintain that whereas religion is a belief system, science is not. It is a means of exploring the world reliant on empirical evidence, open to question as opposed to steeped in dogma.

Some prominent skeptics view religion as a blight on reasoned thinking but as it has been established, scientists can be religious too and this is not a problem if such beliefs stay separate from the methods they use.

See: http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

Unless religion tries to call upon science for self justification (bang goes the faith aspect) then I have no problem. In essence they deal with separate issues.
Don't get me wrong I can understand that some types of religious groups do make decisions that can be potentially life threatening (Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology) and I agree that such applications of doctrine can be justifiably opposed on grounds of science and reason. Other examples are so called spiritualist mediums and faith healers (People who make disprovable claims)

But otherwise is the whole thing a tad overplayed?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]One thing I find puzzling is the whole science versus religion debate.

Most scientists and skeptics will maintain that whereas religion is a belief system, science is not. It is a means of exploring the world reliant on empirical evidence, open to question as opposed to steeped in dogma.

Some prominent skeptics view religion as a blight on reasoned thinking but as it has been established, scientists can be religious too and this is not a problem if such beliefs stay separate from the methods they use.

See: http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

Unless religion tries to call upon science for self justification (bang goes the faith aspect) then I have no problem. In essence they deal with separate issues.

I can't speak for others of a skeptical disposition, and I certainly can't speak for scientists. But I see a difficulty with the notion that science and religion deal with separate issues: that of identifying the issues with which religion peculiarly deals. What is religious belief belief about? It can't stray into science. It has been chased out of history ( who believes in, for example, the Resurrection as historical fact?) It cannot provide a logical foundation for morality ( see the Euthyphro Question, for example), and some at least of religious morality is just plain wrong. As for theology, it's an Aladdin's Cave of fallacies. Perhaps there is some subject-matter that religion can call its own, but it's hard to find.

It is possible to take an entirely noncognitivist view of religious utterance. On some such views religious beliefs are not, in the ordinary sense, beliefs at all, but rather ritual utterances and actions, fostering a sense of community. A bit like shared catchphrases and in-jokes among friends. But that sort of view, although attractive to some religious people, is vehemently rejected by many others- although they can't quite manage to overcome the difficulty I mentioned above.

It can't be about nothing ( they say). But it seems not to be about anything either!

[bindeweede]

One thing I find puzzling is the whole science versus religion debate.

Most scientists and skeptics will maintain that whereas religion is a belief system, science is not. It is a means of exploring the world reliant on empirical evidence, open to question as opposed to steeped in dogma.

Some prominent skeptics view religion as a blight on reasoned thinking but as it has been established, scientists can be religious too and this is not a problem if such beliefs stay separate from the methods they use.

See: http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

Unless religion tries to call upon science for self justification (bang goes the faith aspect) then I have no problem. In essence they deal with separate issues.
Don't get me wrong I can understand that some types of religious groups do make decisions that can be potentially life threatening (Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology) and I agree that such applications of doctrine can be justifiably opposed on grounds of science and reason. Other examples are so called spiritualist mediums and faith healers (People who make disprovable claims)

But otherwise is the whole thing a tad overplayed?
Is religion all that bad?

My post will not attempt an answer. At least 200 non-muslims were killed today in Iraq. The media suggest it was done by Islamic militants, but who really knows. Is religion all that bad?
I despair. This is not down to the American or British forces. Iraq seems to be imploding.

[dllr]

Is religion all that bad?

My post will not attempt an answer. At least 200 non-muslims were killed today in Iraq. The media suggest it was done by Islamic militants, but who really knows. Is religion all that bad?
I despair. This is not down to the American or British forces. Iraq seems to be imploding.

The media SUGGESTS Islamic militants? Who was it done by then? Militant atheists?

The people targetted were Yazidis, they were targetted because they are a minority religion by extremists fighting in the name of another religion (Is it possible to get deja vu for the last 2000 years?).

PS Is religion all that bad? Yes.

[vbloke]

This is a difficult question to answer - mostly because the adherents of [insert religion here] will claim that they do a lot of good (charity, welfare work, volunteering, etc)

However, to borrow a question: name me one thing that a religious person does that can't be done by a non religious person. That should give you some idea of how irrelevant the claims of motivation to do good are anyway.

[Cuddles]

The media SUGGESTS Islamic militants? Who was it done by then? Militant atheists?

The people targetted were Yazidis, they were targetted because they are a minority religion by extremists fighting in the name of another religion (Is it possible to get deja vu for the last 2000 years?).

PS Is religion all that bad? Yes.

But was it really done for religion? Or is it just tribal warfare that has existed since well before Islam even existed? Different tribes have been fighting in the Middle East since humans moved there. Tribes have been fighting pretty much everywhere they existed since humans have existed. Religion is a common excuse, but to pretend it is the actual reason for conflict ignores human nature and most of our history.

As for the OP, I think it depends what you actually mean by "religion". Most people actually seem to be more deist than theist, even if they don't realise it. I think it is a completely pointless belief because it is basically just a god of the gaps, but because of this I don't think there is really any conflict with science in this case, because there aren't any claims made. However, actual organised religion where material claims are made is very different. Claims can be tested. Can water be turned into wine? Can statues bleed? Can people walk on water? All these questions can be answered by science, so when religion claims to have a different answer there is a definite conlict between the two.

The argument that famous scientists have been religious doesn't really hold up here. Firstly, belief in one area doesn't preclude science in another. There is no reason a creationist couldn't be a perfectly good physicist, for example. Secondly, until recently it was essentially impossible to publically admit to being atheist, so anyone from more than a couple of centuries ago will appear to be religious no matter what they actually believed, there was simply no choice in the matter. For example, Galileo was a Catholic because otherwise he'd have been burned at the stake, his actual beliefs were irrelevant. Finally, some people seem to have very different ideas of what is religious. For example, from that list of scientists, Einstein is claimed to be Jewish. Culturally he was, but he was very much an atheist in his beliefs.

[dllr]

But was it really done for religion? Or is it just tribal warfare that has existed since well before Islam even existed? Different tribes have been fighting in the Middle East since humans moved there. Tribes have been fighting pretty much everywhere they existed since humans have existed. Religion is a common excuse, but to pretend it is the actual reason for conflict ignores human nature and most of our history.

Well if it was a tribal attack then it would've been an attack on Kurds (because that's what the Yazidis are) and looking at all the news reports coming out of the Middle East this distinction is not being made and in fact the threat by Islamic extremists seems to be the main focus. The reason for the attack seems to be the Yazidis religion which is an odd blending of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Islamic State in Iraq, an al-Qaeda front group, distributed leaflets a week ago warning that an attack was imminent because Yazidis were "anti-Islamic".

So....

1. al-Qaeda are Islamic extremists

2. They threaten another religious group

3. They attack the aforementioned group

.....if that isn't a religious inspired attack, I don't know what is.

[Zaira]

"But otherwise is the whole thing a tad overplayed?" - median

In my opinion, yes. I believe religion is a personal life choice. I don't understand the need to go shouting about one's religion from the rooftops.


"However, to borrow a question: name me one thing that a religious person does that can't be done by a non religious person. That should give you some idea of how irrelevant the claims of motivation to do good are anyway." - vbloke

That helps me to put all the religious waffle into perspective. To be honest I have an issue with in-your-face-do-gooders, can't help wondering what they feel they have to prove. So much can be done quietly in the background.


"But was it really done for religion? Or is it just tribal warfare that has existed since well before Islam even existed? Different tribes have been fighting in the Middle East since humans moved there. Tribes have been fighting pretty much everywhere they existed since humans have existed. Religion is a common excuse, but to pretend it is the actual reason for conflict ignores human nature and most of our history." - Cuddles

I don't think it's all down to tribal warfare. I don't know about Islam. I can't get my head around people killing each other in the name of religion full stop.

[Ardbeg]

But was it really done for religion? Or is it just tribal warfare that has existed since well before Islam even existed? Different tribes have been fighting in the Middle East since humans moved there. Tribes have been fighting pretty much everywhere they existed since humans have existed. Religion is a common excuse, but to pretend it is the actual reason for conflict ignores human nature and most of our history.

Well if it was a tribal attack then it would've been an attack on Kurds (because that's what the Yazidis are) and looking at all the news reports coming out of the Middle East this distinction is not being made and in fact the threat by Islamic extremists seems to be the main focus. The reason for the attack seems to be the Yazidis religion which is an odd blending of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Islamic State in Iraq, an al-Qaeda front group, distributed leaflets a week ago warning that an attack was imminent because Yazidis were "anti-Islamic".

So....

1. al-Qaeda are Islamic extremists

2. They threaten another religious group

3. They attack the aforementioned group

.....if that isn't a religious inspired attack, I don't know what is.


I cant help feeling that all religion is being as bad based on the actions of one group in one area (or indeed, a few groups in a few areas). The majority of religious people I know are actually peace loving decent people and this argument just doesnt hold water.

[Ardbeg]

I probably speak from a different perspective here, but why is it that these debates focus on Christianity and the Bible. (and recently, Islam and terrorists). Surely, any principle needs to have universal application across the board, i.e., be applicable to all religions without exception.

[vbloke]

I cant help feeling that all religion is being as bad based on the actions of one group in one area (or indeed, a few groups in a few areas). The majority of religious people I know are actually peace loving decent people and this argument just doesnt hold water.But is that (as I intimated from my post ^^ up there) because of their religion, or in spite of it?

[Ardbeg]

But is that (as I intimated from my post ^^ up there) because of their religion, or in spite of it?

I'd vote for 'inspite of it'......;)

[seren]

>>name me one thing that a religious person does that can't be done by a non religious person<<

Praying, and really, really *meaning* it.

[dllr]

I cant help feeling that all religion is being as bad based on the actions of one group in one area (or indeed, a few groups in a few areas). The majority of religious people I know are actually peace loving decent people and this argument just doesnt hold water.

I wasn't using it as a justification to tar all religious people with the same brush. I was merely pointing out that the recent attack in Iraq was very much a religious inspired act of terrorism and not as some people have suggested a tribal one.

[Ardbeg]

I wasn't using it as a justification to tar all religious people with the same brush. I was merely pointing out that the recent attack in Iraq was very much a religious inspired act of terrorism and not as some people have suggested a tribal one.

Thanks for that clarification. O0

[dllr]

I probably speak from a different perspective here, but why is it that these debates focus on Christianity and the Bible. (and recently, Islam and terrorists). Surely, any principle needs to have universal application across the board, i.e., be applicable to all religions without exception.

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

I think that Christianity and Islam get focussed upon more is because they are the major religions. There are plenty of critiques of other faiths. I don't see how it can be applicable accross the board as all faiths are different, there is the argument that some that we consider religions aren't religions at all so how can they be judged equally?

[Ardbeg]

I probably speak from a different perspective here, but why is it that these debates focus on Christianity and the Bible. (and recently, Islam and terrorists). Surely, any principle needs to have universal application across the board, i.e., be applicable to all religions without exception.

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

I think that Christianity and Islam get focussed upon more is because they are the major religions. There are plenty of critiques of other faiths. I don't see how it can be applicable accross the board as all faiths are different, there is the argument that some that we consider religions aren't religions at all so how can they be judged equally?

However, any debate on whether religion is all that bad needs, by its very nature, take into account all religions or a majority of them to reach any logical conclusion. A detraction from this would mean that not all data has been given due consideration. And how do you describe a 'major religion'? Would you consider judaism to be a 'major religion, not perhaps on the basis of (tyranny of) numbers, but perhaps on account of the manner in which its historical treatment has affected (and continues to affect) the world we live in? Similarly, what about Buddhism and Hinduism, the latter of which, exists in a region which has historically, been far more tolerant than other cultures / religions. (I dont mean to say that culture and religion are the same, just that in this particular instance, the line between them is so fine as to be negligible on a practical level).

[dllr]

However, any debate on whether religion is all that bad needs, by its very nature, take into account all religions or a majority of them to reach any logical conclusion. A detraction from this would mean that not all data has been given due consideration. And how do you describe a 'major religion'? Would you consider judaism to be a 'major religion, not perhaps on the basis of (tyranny of) numbers, but perhaps on account of the manner in which its historical treatment has affected (and continues to affect) the world we live in? Similarly, what about Buddhism and Hinduism, the latter of which, exists in a region which has historically, been far more tolerant than other cultures / religions. (I dont mean to say that culture and religion are the same, just that in this particular instance, the line between them is so fine as to be negligible on a practical level).

A major religion I guess is down to the number of adherants and the influence of it on a global scale (discounting wacky conspiracy theories).

http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif

As for Judaism, I would consider it an important religion but I wouldn't describe it as a major religion. Similarly with Hinduism and Buddhism. I think it's easier to divide it up between Abrahamic religions, non-Abrahamic religions and non-theists.

At the end of the day though the question is 'Is religion all that bad?' and my personal answer is from my experience, yes. Wether you divide it up or not I find most religious divisive, authoritarian and unhelpful to the development of man and society.

[Zaira]

seren,

">>name me one thing that a religious person does that can't be done by a non religious person<<"

"Praying, and really, really *meaning* it."


I have a whole collection of prayers that I wrote, they give me comfort. I may not pray to a God but I do pray to the Universe. After all, it is my home, my provider, and my protector.


Universe lay your blessing upon me.
May your peace abide within me.
May your presence illuminate my heart.
May your love and protection be all around me and within me now and forever more.
May your blessing rest upon my children and their children.
May your peace abide within all of them.
May your presence illuminate their hearts and open their minds.
May your love and protection be all around them and within them now and forever more.


Whose to say which, the religious person or me, is the most sincere?

“If the only prayer you ever say in your entire life is thank you, it will be enough.” ~ Meiser Echart

[median]

Apologies if the points I have tried to make are not all that clear

Lord Muck of Gentry wrote


But I see a difficulty with the notion that science and religion deal with separate issues: that of identifying the issues with which religion peculiarly deals. What is religious belief belief about?

Yes, I agree that's a hard one, I suppose for me the idea of religion seems to centre on the idea of an afterlife, everlasting peace, atonement, judgement day, the usual suspects. Though I recognise that I may be using the term differently to someone else.


It cannot provide a logical foundation for morality ( see the Euthyphro Question, for example), and some at least of religious morality is just plain wrong. As for theology, it's an Aladdin's Cave of fallacies.


Thanks for pointing out the Euthyphro question. It is an interesting analysis but to may religious people I suspect somewhat irrelevant. Since when did logic enter religion?

Cuddles wrote


I don't think there is really any conflict with science in this case, because there aren't any claims made. However, actual organised religion where material claims are made is very different. Claims can be tested. Can water be turned into wine? Can statues bleed? Can people walk on water? All these questions can be answered by science, so when religion claims to have a different answer there is a definite conlict between the two.


Totally agree on that Cuddles, I thought I had said that but maybe not clearly enough O0


The argument that famous scientists have been religious doesn't really hold up here. Firstly, belief in one area doesn't preclude science in another. There is no reason a creationist couldn't be a perfectly good physicist, for example.

Again I think we are in agreement but I think it rather does hold up for that reason. Religion/belief in God relies on faith and science is evidentially based. My central argument challenged the idea that religion has undermined reasoned thinking to such a great extent.

Forget the morality or the claims to incredible powers but instead focus on the inner faith of an individual.
Is there any evidence that religion in this context has eroded reason or scientific progress? (moral objections aside)

[Allo Allo]

.
Is there any evidence that religion in this context has eroded reason or scinetific progress? (moral objections aside)

Good article on just this from my friend the Dalai Lama (http://www.dreammanifesto.com/the-danger-of-reducing-humans-to-biological-machines.html)(I heard him speak some years ago - excellent) Just ignore the website it's on.

[Zaira]

Is religion all that bad?

I'm going to say yes. Religion's history is just as much of a blood bath as war's history. The Church created the Inquisition to eliminate heretics by all possible means including torture and execution . The Church arrested Galileo and forbade him to teach that the earth most probably circles around the sun. And the list goes on.

[median]

Mmm Michelle, not quite the answer I was looking for but some valid points by the big DL nevertheless

[Ardbeg]

Is religion all that bad?



I'm going to say yes. Religion's history is just as much of a blood bath as war's history. The Church created the Inquisition to eliminate heretics by all possible means including torture and execution . The Church arrested Galileo and forbade him to teach that the earth most probably circles around the sun. And the list goes on.

Is that 'religion' or just a misinterpretation of it? I cant help but think that truly religious people follow the first and most important principle that most religions advocate - that all people are dear to God and therefore, do unto your neighbour....

The ones who claim otherwise and blow up children in the name of their faith or beat people to death or try and convert others are just charlatans and criminals. Religion is their excuse.

[dllr]

The ones who claim otherwise and blow up children in the name of their faith or beat people to death or try and convert others are just charlatans and criminals.

That's a nice get out clause. Isn't converting people a part of certain religions? Isn't stoning people for certain crime proscribed in certain holy texts?

They're not charlatans if they're following the rules.

Blowing kids up is a no-no, but I'm sure there are scholars out there that can point to a text or two that ok's it.

[Zaira]

Ardbeg,

"Is that 'religion' or just a misinterpretation of it? I cant help but think that truly religious people follow the first and most important principle that most religions advocate - that all people are dear to God and therefore, do unto your neighbour...."

Before your neighbour does unto you.

Sorry. I don't really believe that. Just couldn't resist.

It doesn't matter how you cut it........ Religion has a lot to answer for.

I doubt there are any truly religious people around anymore. When was the last time you saw one neighbour do something truly selfless for another neighbour?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I suppose for me the idea of religion seems to centre on the idea of an afterlife, everlasting peace, atonement, judgement day, the usual suspects.

Though I recognise that I may be using the term differently to someone else.


Thanks for pointing out the Euthyphro question. It is an interesting analysis but to may religious people I suspect somewhat irrelevant. Since when did logic enter religion?



Well, speaking as one of the someone elses, I rather fancy the notions of atonement and judgement. :-) Even if it gets me drummed out of the "hardheaded" fancy.

There's bugger-all wrong IMO with religious language if it gets the point across. However- and I ask entirely without irony- what point is got across by talk of afterlife and everlasting peace?

On the Euthyphro Question: I entirely agree that it is irrelevant to many religious people. They are quite entitled to ignore it, so long as they do not try to invoke God as a moral authority.

[Ardbeg]

Ardbeg,



"Is that 'religion' or just a misinterpretation of it? I cant help but think that truly religious people follow the first and most important principle that most religions advocate - that all people are dear to God and therefore, do unto your neighbour...."



Before your neighbour does unto you.



Sorry. I don't really believe that. Just couldn't resist.



It doesn't matter how you cut it........ Religion has a lot to answer for.



I doubt there are any truly religious people around anymore. When was the last time you saw one neighbour do something truly selfless for another neighbour?

Quite often actually, but admittedly, not in this country!!!!!!!!

[Zaira]

Sad but true. I live in a nice little court yard with only 17 neighbours. It's fine if you are just saying, "Good morning, how are you?" But offer to help with shopping, or to pick something up because I'm popping to the corner shop, and they look at you like you are planning to escape with their life savings. Another sign of the times I suppose.

[Matt]

Before your neighbour does unto you.

Hmmmm... I think I've heard that one before. I wonder if from the same source. How does this one grab you?

"The Golden Rule is that he with the most Gold, makes the rules."

[Cuddles]

.....if that isn't a religious inspired attack, I don't know what is.

They use religion as an excuse, but is it actually the reason? If you look at pretty much any conflict, past or present, the actual root cause is almost always land or power. To keep with your example, the different tribes in the Persian area have been fighting for thousands of years. The fact that they are now mainly grouped as Shiaa or Sunni doesn't mean it is a religious conflcit, the same people have been fighting in the same area for millenia. It is about land and power, not religion.

What about Israel? This is usually portrayed as Jews vs. Muslims, but the actual conflict has been present since before Christianity existed, let alone Islam. It is about land, and in this case it is such a long-running conflict that no-one can even tell who actually lived there first anyway.

Northern Ireland? Is that really Catholic vs. Protestant, or is it about the fact that one country invaded another and took their land? The Crusades? Was it really about Christianity, or was it actually about building an empire? The Inquisition? Was that really anything to do with religion or was it about the biggest power in the area trying to keep hold of it's influence when faced with many people trying to break away?

It's all very well blaming things no religion, but does anyone really believe that any of these conflicts would go away if religion was taken out of the picture? The exact methods used might be different, and the excuses given might be different, but the conflict would still be there. There is no doubt that religion influences conflicts, as does every other part of our culture, but to actually blame things on religion ignores a huge amount of what is actually going on.

[dllr]

They use religion as an excuse, but is it actually the reason? If you look at pretty much any conflict, past or present, the actual root cause is almost always land or power. To keep with your example, the different tribes in the Persian area have been fighting for thousands of years. The fact that they are now mainly grouped as Shiaa or Sunni doesn't mean it is a religious conflcit, the same people have been fighting in the same area for millenia. It is about land and power, not religion.

What about Israel? This is usually portrayed as Jews vs. Muslims, but the actual conflict has been present since before Christianity existed, let alone Islam. It is about land, and in this case it is such a long-running conflict that no-one can even tell who actually lived there first anyway.

Northern Ireland? Is that really Catholic vs. Protestant, or is it about the fact that one country invaded another and took their land? The Crusades? Was it really about Christianity, or was it actually about building an empire? The Inquisition? Was that really anything to do with religion or was it about the biggest power in the area trying to keep hold of it's influence when faced with many people trying to break away?

It's all very well blaming things no religion, but does anyone really believe that any of these conflicts would go away if religion was taken out of the picture? The exact methods used might be different, and the excuses given might be different, but the conflict would still be there. There is no doubt that religion influences conflicts, as does every other part of our culture, but to actually blame things on religion ignores a huge amount of what is actually going on.

Let's not 'look at pretty much any conflict'. You seem to be arguing that religion isn't solely to blame for this specific attack.

1. Al Qaeda (who are Islamic fundamentalists who's goals are not concerned with disputed land, tribal gains or nationalistic advancement) threaten the Yazidis, who are ethnic Kurds of a minority religion, not Kurds in general for 'anti-Islamic' activities.

2. Al Qaeda murder 500 Yazidis for being 'anti-Islamic'

This was mass murder based on, inspired by and carried out in the name of religion.

[Zaira]

Matt,

There are many Golden Rules.

Treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated.

To apply the golden rule adequately, we need knowledge and imagination. We need to know what effect our actions have on the lives of others. And we need to be able to imagine ourselves, vividly and accurately, in the other person's place on the receiving end of the action. With knowledge, imagination, and the golden rule, we can progress far in our moral thinking.

[Ardbeg]

Sad but true. I live in a nice little court yard with only 17 neighbours. It's fine if you are just saying, "Good morning, how are you?" But offer to help with shopping, or to pick something up because I'm popping to the corner shop, and they look at you like you are planning to escape with their life savings. Another sign of the times I suppose.

I have a friend who recently moved from London to Switzerland and she's always seen as a bit of an oddball because when her neighbour was out of the country for a couple of weeks, she invited the husband to dinner with her family every night to save him cooking for one person. In some countries, that's just neighbourly politeness and I was brought up in a country where its the norm...along with taking care of neighbour's property, getting their house cleaned before they're due back from out of town, doing a bit of shopping for them, etc. Unfortunately, I dont see that much of it in this country...a bit...but nowhere quite enough.

Admittedly, this is more 'culture' than religion. Then what is it that a religious person can do that a non-religious one cant (apart from praying as someone said, on which there is no commonality anyway)? I think the answer lies not in what one CAN do, but rather, what one DOES do. Societies which are more religious are also more closely knit in terms of primary relationships (on a general level) and characterised by greater number of closer relationships within the larger community. While this is not a direct result of 'religion', it is inevitably so closely linked that its difficult to distinguish where one ends and the other begins.

I've had the benefit of living in three major cultures for several years at a time and this is what I have concluded.

[Zaira]

Ardbeg,

".. she's always seen as a bit of an oddball."

I know the feeling.


"In some countries, that's just neighbourly politeness and I was brought up in a country where its the norm...along with taking care of neighbour's property, getting their house cleaned before they're due back from out of town, doing a bit of shopping for them, etc. Unfortunately, I don’t see that much of it in this country...a bit...but nowhere quite enough."

As a kid, in Glasgow, I remember my mum doing that for our neighbours. Washing the stairs when it wasn't her turn, getting bits of shopping for them, and feeding their kids tea if they were short of money. Neighbours in and out of each others houses, kids too. Bringing in a neighbours washing because it had started to rain. As a young army wife, I did my bit for my neighbours, especially when the guys were away playing silly buggers somewhere. We helped each other and kept each other company. But we moved around and the neighbourly thing just seemed to fade out. Mores the pity.

Now I'm the oddball because I want to get to know my neighbours better.


"Admittedly, this is more 'culture' than religion. Then what is it that a religious person can do that a non-religious one cant (apart from praying as someone said, on which there is no commonality anyway)?"

I agree, being a good neighbour is more about culture than religion today. There wasn't much culture, or religion for that matter, in the tenement building where I grew up.


"I think the answer lies not in what one CAN do, but rather, what one DOES do."

True. If we must judge anyone then let us judge them by their actions and not their good intentions.


"Societies which are more religious are also more closely knit in terms of primary relationships (on a general level) and characterised by greater number of closer relationships within the larger community. While this is not a direct result of 'religion', it is inevitably so closely linked that its difficult to distinguish where one ends and the other begins."

I was friends with a woman who was a member of a church. A church that definitely lacked in real community. She was very upset one day and told me of the pressure she was under to do things for the church. Things she had been asked to do, not leaving her much time for anything else except taking care of her family. Her husband had been off work ill for sometime and the church had help them out on occasion with groceries. And here she was, on the verge of a nervous breakdown, trying to repay the church. Where was the charity in what they did for her and her family if she is left feeling obligated to pay them back. I believe she was advised against being friends with me, perhaps because I refused to be recruited.

[Ardbeg]

I was friends with a woman who was a member of a church. A church that definitely lacked in real community. She was very upset one day and told me of the pressure she was under to do things for the church. Things she had been asked to do, not leaving her much time for anything else except taking care of her family. Her husband had been off work ill for sometime and the church had help them out on occasion with groceries. And here she was, on the verge of a nervous breakdown, trying to repay the church. Where was the charity in what they did for her and her family if she is left feeling obligated to pay them back. I believe she was advised against being friends with me, perhaps because I refused to be recruited. This is exactly what I mean. Can people who treated this poor woman in this way, be considered to be 'religious', since they dont seem to have grasped the simple rule of all religions - "do unto others...."? I my books, they are not religious. They are charlatans! Pretending to belong to a religious group does not make one religious. Real religiousness is private and a guiding factor in one's personal life.

I once spoke to a criminal who was a devout member of his faith. He said to me - God is really merciful. Even if you commit murder and apologise for it later, you will be forgiven. Even if you do it several times. :-\ (Yes, the logic is lost on me too)!

Is this person religious? OFCOURSE NOT!

[Ardbeg]

They use religion as an excuse, but is it actually the reason? If you look at pretty much any conflict, past or present, the actual root cause is almost always land or power. To keep with your example, the different tribes in the Persian area have been fighting for thousands of years. The fact that they are now mainly grouped as Shiaa or Sunni doesn't mean it is a religious conflcit, the same people have been fighting in the same area for millenia. It is about land and power, not religion.

What about Israel? This is usually portrayed as Jews vs. Muslims, but the actual conflict has been present since before Christianity existed, let alone Islam. It is about land, and in this case it is such a long-running conflict that no-one can even tell who actually lived there first anyway.

Northern Ireland? Is that really Catholic vs. Protestant, or is it about the fact that one country invaded another and took their land? The Crusades? Was it really about Christianity, or was it actually about building an empire? The Inquisition? Was that really anything to do with religion or was it about the biggest power in the area trying to keep hold of it's influence when faced with many people trying to break away?

It's all very well blaming things no religion, but does anyone really believe that any of these conflicts would go away if religion was taken out of the picture? The exact methods used might be different, and the excuses given might be different, but the conflict would still be there. There is no doubt that religion influences conflicts, as does every other part of our culture, but to actually blame things on religion ignores a huge amount of what is actually going on.


Wonderfully put. So clear.

[Zaira]

Cuddles,

I understand and feel the same way. My soldier guy was posted to Northern Ireland every summer for the first seven years of our marriage. From what I understand, most of the people on the streets shouting and yelling at the soldiers were kids and young adults who thought it was a big joke to spit on and spout abuse at the soldiers while throwing stones. Their actions and their language was anything but religious.

It may be about religion, but it's something else too. And like you said, take the religion out of it and they would find some other excuse for making war - civil or otherwise.

My hubby was shot in 76, and involved in a bombing at Warenpoint in 79 which left eighteen of his platoon dead. He spent almost a year in Chessington Army Rehabilitation Centre, coming home on weekends in a wheelchair, till he recovered from his injuries. I only say this to let you know that I have experienced so called religious conflict - be it through my husband's job as a soldier.

I try to avoid talking about it because I am uncomfortable with negativity. And my thoughts are anything but positive when I think back to that time.

[Allo Allo]

They use religion as an excuse, but is it actually the reason? If you look at pretty much any conflict, past or present, the actual root cause is almost always land or power. To keep with your example, the different tribes in the Persian area have been fighting for thousands of years. The fact that they are now mainly grouped as Shiaa or Sunni doesn't mean it is a religious conflcit, the same people have been fighting in the same area for millenia. It is about land and power, not religion.

What about Israel? This is usually portrayed as Jews vs. Muslims, but the actual conflict has been present since before Christianity existed, let alone Islam. It is about land, and in this case it is such a long-running conflict that no-one can even tell who actually lived there first anyway.

Northern Ireland? Is that really Catholic vs. Protestant, or is it about the fact that one country invaded another and took their land? The Crusades? Was it really about Christianity, or was it actually about building an empire? The Inquisition? Was that really anything to do with religion or was it about the biggest power in the area trying to keep hold of it's influence when faced with many people trying to break away?

It's all very well blaming things no religion, but does anyone really believe that any of these conflicts would go away if religion was taken out of the picture? The exact methods used might be different, and the excuses given might be different, but the conflict would still be there. There is no doubt that religion influences conflicts, as does every other part of our culture, but to actually blame things on religion ignores a huge amount of what is actually going on.

I think you are spot on here Cuddles. With a bit of manipulation it is not too hard to fan religious feelings into nationalistic fervour. Did you watch "Partition" on the Telly this week about India's road to independence? I found it illuminating.

I don't know whether Christian Religions nowadays have the drive for world domination - but Islam has. Is this about domination and power or making sure everyone follows their religion? And what is the difference?

Why do we humans want other people to think the same way we do? Many religions actively convert people. Radical Athiests are doing the same thing surely?

And there really IS a problem with words when talking about religion and belief. I become very twitchy in the presence of religious people - but not in the presence of - what is the word?? - it's that blasted word again - "spiritual" people. What is the best word to describe this sensitive, gentleness that comes from a person who is simply "good"? I haven't found the perfect word yet...

There is a really super snip from one of Dawkins interviews on Atheism - he was trying to describe "spiritual" experiences Atheists have - mystical even - and he flounders for the right words.

We need some new words that come from a not belief in god or any religion!

[Ardbeg]

I don't know whether Christian Religions nowadays have the drive for world domination - but Islam has. Is this about domination and power or making sure everyone follows their religion? And what is the difference?

Its not tru that Islam strives for world domination! Nothing in the Koran talks about world domination and even the word 'kafir' has linguistic implications which must be seen within context.

In fact, as mentioned in a previous post of mine, I've had the privilege of living in three cultures and observing them closely. One of my observations is that the projection of Islam in the Western media (and not just Islam but most Eastern religions) is usually out of context. There are complex socio-cultural-economic foundations that are so closely related to religion so as to be virtually indistinguishable from them. And these need to be understood fully in order to begin comprehending the religion, its followers and its principles.

The problem, in my view, arises when one comes from a Christian culture, with its associated "Religion is what you do on a Sunday" approach. That perspective, by its very nature, precludes an understanding of religion in everyday life, thoughts, actions, behaviour, etc.

And when religion and culture are so closely intertwined, can you challenge the religious aspect of a people without questioning their very identity and world view? No one likes their identity threatened, either at the micro level or at the macro level. And this is crucial. Therefore, its neither about domination and power nor about making sure everyone follows their religion. Its a struggle to establish identity (also keep in mind here that Islam is one of the youngest religions in the world today. Any young religion has historically had to fight to gain acceptance and establish itself). Query, are we asking the right questions?

[dllr]

The problem here is that you're to busy looking for other motivations to blame for the worlds ills to lessen religions role. Religion is the main inspiration, the main tool, the justifier and the way to be forgiven for the horrors of war.

I suggest you re-look at the situation if you honestly believe that the Israel-Palestine, Northern Ireland or Iraqi conflicts are solely based on tribal and geographical arguments. The reason the Jews believe the land is theirs is a contract with god. The reason the sectarian hatred in Northern Ireland is as virulent, is the clash between Protestantism and Catholicism. The reason for the carnage in Iraq is a form of fundamentalist Islam unconcerned with national borders and more influenced by the idea of an international caliphate and the belief that murdering civilians is ok because it's for their 'greater good'.

The assertion that the crusades were based on empire building is absolutely laughable. Why did the crusaders believed that the 'holy' land was theirs. Why were different clans, crowns and countries all involved on the same side? What inspired them? What drove them to ignore ancient rivalries and form one large army?

The assertion that the inquisition was a body to keep hold of nationalistic power rather than a tool of religious cleansing and torture is bizarre and frankly insulting. To absolve the religious bodies which instigated this abomination is disgusting. I wonder wether Sephardi Jews who were brutally oppressed and completely ejected from Spain would be happy for you to describe their inquisitors as a nationalist power? How about the freethinkers? How about the scientists? How about the innocents tortured and killed for 'alleged' crimes against god?


There is no doubt that religion influences conflicts, as does every other part of our culture, but to actually blame things on religion ignores a huge amount of what is actually going on.

Religion indeed influences conflicts, it also inspires them, arms them, provides them with justifications. To actually point at other factors and to lessen religions role is ignoring the elephant in the room.

PS Cuddles, you've still to convince me that the disgusting attack on the Yazidis in Northern Iraq was anything but a religious atrocity.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I doubt there are any truly religious people around anymore. When was the last time you saw one neighbour do something truly selfless for another neighbour?

Doing something selfless doesn't really have anything to do with religion - it's just that religion trys to claim morality for itself.

Dawkins' God Delusion has a memorable section about morality. He makes the now rather obvious point - "If There is no God, Why Be Good?" - what style of lives would Christians lead if the Bible/God didn't exist? Would they murder, steal, commit adultery etc at will? Are they only moral because they fear God will punish them if they are not? If so, then it doesn't say much for the character of a Christian.

Following from that he argues, that if you would be a moral person regardless of what God tells you, then God is not necessary to be moral. O0

Dawkins makes a very good case as to why morality, and specifically altruism is an evolutionary trait.

[seren]

>>seren,

">>name me one thing that a religious person does that can't be done by a non religious person<<"

"Praying, and really, really *meaning* it."


I have a whole collection of prayers that I wrote, they give me comfort. I may not pray to a God but I do pray to the Universe. After all, it is my home, my provider, and my protector.<<



I was merely being lighthearted Zaira, but I'm interested that you feel your prayers are not "religious". What would you call them?

[Allo Allo]

Its not tru that Islam strives for world domination! Nothing in the Koran talks about world domination and even the word 'kafir' has linguistic implications which must be seen within context. Ok - which is in what context? ~I understand it thus - "In the Islamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) doctrinal sense the term refers to a person who does not recognize Allah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah) or the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) and hides, denies, or covers the truth. In cultural terms, it is a derogatory term[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir#_note-Islamonline.net) used to describe an unbeliever, non-Muslims" Wiki

One of my observations is that the projection of Islam in the Western media (and not just Islam but most Eastern religions) is usually out of context. Ok - but most of us have only the Western media.....

No one likes their identity threatened, either at the micro level or at the macro level. And this is crucial.True - crucial for whom?

Therefore, its neither about domination and power nor about making sure everyone follows their religion. Its a struggle to establish identity (also keep in mind here that Islam is one of the youngest religions in the world today. Any young religion has historically had to fight to gain acceptance and establish itself). I thought it was established - its the second largest religion in the world.....1375 years old is hardly "new".

Query, are we asking the right questions? I don't know.....questions like what? The question I asked was "Is this about domination and power or making sure everyone follows their religion? And what is the difference?"

[Allo Allo]

The problem here is that you're to busy looking for other motivations to blame for the worlds ills to lessen religions role. Religion is the main inspiration, the main tool, the justifier and the way to be forgiven for the horrors of war. I don't think anyone is trying to do this. If you think of the world's ills currently - mainly war and genocide - one cannot in all honesty blame religion. This is true for all the modern wars, genocides like Rwanda etc - or even our invasion of Iraq.....

[dllr]

I don't think anyone is trying to do this. If you think of the world's ills currently - mainly war and genocide - one cannot in all honesty blame religion. This is true for all the modern wars, genocides like Rwanda etc - or even our invasion of Iraq.....


I was responding to Cuddles, who has still to explain to me how the recent attack on the Yazidis in Iraq wasn't a religious outrage. As for religions role in war and conflicts I was using the one's that Cuddles mentioned as examples ie the current insurgency in Iraq (not the original invasion), Northern Ireland, the Crusades and Israel-Palestine.

[Zaira]

seren,

"I was merely being light-hearted, Zaira. But I'm interested that you feel your prayers are not "religious". What would you call them?"

Light-hearted is good. I don't think of myself as a religious person. I do however enjoy some spiritual aspects of Zen. And where religious people attend church services and pray, I practice Relaxation, Meditation and Affirmation. So I guess I would call them Affirmations.

[Zaira]

FarSideOfTheMoon,

I think we already came to that conclusion. It was decided that the selfless acts were more a culture thing than religion. It's just that I don't know any really selfless people religious or otherwise. And I think that is just a sign of the times.

"If There is no God, Why Be Good?"

I can't speak for others but I think it might be to do with Karma or cause and effect or The Law Of Attraction. There are people who believe what goes around comes around. And to my knowledge this is enough to encourage even non-religious people to be good.

God is not necessary to be moral. Claiming that he is, would be to say that everyone who doesn't believe in God is amoral.

[Ardbeg]

Dawkins' God Delusion has a memorable section about morality. He makes the now rather obvious point - "If There is no God, Why Be Good?" - what style of lives would Christians lead if the Bible/God didn't exist? Would they murder, steal, commit adultery etc at will? Are they only moral because they fear God will punish them if they are not? If so, then it doesn't say much for the character of a Christian.

Following from that he argues, that if you would be a moral person regardless of what God tells you, then God is not necessary to be moral. O0

And there, you've just pointed out the biggest flaw in Christian theology! And now, I'd like to point you to the three modes of material nature as set out in the Bhagvad Gita! O0

[Zaira]

Allo Allo,

"We need some new words that come from a not belief in god or any religion!"

Hear! Hear! I'm into Zen philosophy and meditation. Family and friends often mistakenly think I must be into God too. But that's not the case, and I have a struggle finding the words to explain what it is I do believe.

[Cuddles]

Let's not 'look at pretty much any conflict'. You seem to be arguing that religion isn't solely to blame for this specific attack.

But that's the whole point. If you look at individual events they can be blamed on just about anything. What is important is to look at the conflict as a whole. Why are people told to carry out attacks like this? Is it really to convert people to their own particular brand of Islam, or is it that the people telling others to blow themselves up want power?

Notice that attacks like this were almost unheard of while Al-Qaeda were in power, now they are an every day occurence. Also notice that the people telling others to kill themselves are never the ones doing it themselves. If this was really about religion shouldn't those who believe it most be doing what they say their beliefs tell them? On the other hand, if it was about the people at the top getting more for themselves we would see only people at the bottom killing themselves. Which one actually happens?


The problem here is that you're to busy looking for other motivations to blame for the worlds ills to lessen religions role. Religion is the main inspiration, the main tool, the justifier and the way to be forgiven for the horrors of war.

The two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Falklands, Sudan, DRC, US war of independence, UK civil war, French revolution, 1066, Roman empire, Spanish armada, Chinese revolution, USSR, etc.. Were all these about religion?

I suspect that the real problem here is that you are so eager to blame religion for everything that you won't consider all the other causes of conflict. IF you really believe the religion is the main inspiration for war, I suggest you have a good look at human history.


The reason the Jews believe the land is theirs is a contract with god.

But the land has been fought over since before that contract existed. Also, Jews and Palestinians are not religions, they are cultures. The fact that the main religion of the Jews is also called Jewish causes a lot of confusion, but it is entirely possible to be a Jew without being religious. Palestinians are certainly not a religion in any way, and their predominant religion has only existed for around 1000 years, much less time than they have been fighting. It is usually referred to as the Arab-Israeli conflict for good reason - it is a conflict between Arabs and Israelis, not Muslims and Jews.


The reason the sectarian hatred in Northern Ireland is as virulent, is the clash between Protestantism and Catholicism.

Is it? Or is it because one country invaded another and many of the citizens aren't happy about it? Is this really any different from the many other insurgencies around the world? Look at Columbia and Sri Lanka for some very obvious examples.


The reason for the carnage in Iraq is a form of fundamentalist Islam unconcerned with national borders and more influenced by the idea of an international caliphate and the belief that murdering civilians is ok because it's for their 'greater good'.

Look at the bolded part, it says it all really. They want power. Just like the Pope, they don't care who says they own which country as long as everyone does what they are told. Is religion a tool used to achieve this? Of course. Is it the reason for it? No.


The assertion that the crusades were based on empire building is absolutely laughable. Why did the crusaders believed that the 'holy' land was theirs. Why were different clans, crowns and countries all involved on the same side? What inspired them? What drove them to ignore ancient rivalries and form one large army?

Why did England believe France was theirs? Why were all the English clans involved on the same side? Why did Spain believe Brazil was theirs? Why did Germany believe Europe was theirs?

Once again, you are confusing the tool with the reason. All the different, infighting groups in a country group together and invade somewhere on the instructions of a higher authority, their King (or equivalent). The crusades were no different, a group of separate, infighting countries came together to invade somewhere on the instructions of a higher authority. Religion may be the tool used for one of the to gain authority, but that does not make it the reason for it. In effect, the Pope and his associated authority is really just a leftover from the Roman empire, which was certainly not based on religion. Some of the empire lived on longer than other parts, and one of the lasting parts was the religious authority.


The assertion that the inquisition was a body to keep hold of nationalistic power rather than a tool of religious cleansing and torture is bizarre and frankly insulting. To absolve the religious bodies which instigated this abomination is disgusting. I wonder wether Sephardi Jews who were brutally oppressed and completely ejected from Spain would be happy for you to describe their inquisitors as a nationalist power? How about the freethinkers? How about the scientists? How about the innocents tortured and killed for 'alleged' crimes against god?

Whoever said anything about "nationalistic"? Not all power is about just one country. The Pope had pretty much absolute authority over most of Europe. Are you suggesting he didn't mind losing it? The Inquisition was a tool to keep it. While there is evidence that it was taken over by some rather sadistic people with their own agenda, the reason for it's existence was quite simply to keep people in line with the Pope.

The fact that you consider debate about this "insulting" and "disgusting" says an awful lot here. You seem to have a rather strong emotional need to blame everything on religion. Bringing such emotional arguments into a largely historical debate is, in your own words, bizzare.


Religion indeed influences conflicts, it also inspires them, arms them, provides them with justifications. To actually point at other factors and to lessen religions role is ignoring the elephant in the room.

Pointing out one particular elephant while visiting the zoo doesn't really mean anything. Yes, religion has its problems, but trying to place the blame for all human conflict and wrongdoing on it really is quite odd.

[dllr]

Ok Cuddles (wasn't that the name of Keith Harris's monkey?),

I'll keep this short because this discussion could run and run...

1. The attack that was in question was the attack on the Yazidis, it was a religious attack.

2. Al-Qaeda have never been 'in power', I think you're getting the secular Ba'athist regime of Saddam and the blood thirsty supernaturalists of Al-Qaeda mixed up.

3. I didn't say (although I may have been unclear) that all wars are religious, I was merely pointing out that the ones used as examples were. (ps if you think that the English Civil War wasn't inspired by and instigated because of religion I suggest you read up on the difference between the two warring sides).

4. There have been conflicts over land in all parts of the world, Israel-Palestine is the only one to my knowledge that has been based on a religious promise. There may well have been disputes about territory but to paint that conflict as anything but a war of theologies is ignoring both sides motivations.

5. Northern Ireland is more territorial granted, but what's the difference between it and other lands that have been conquered by the English Protestants.....Cornwall, Wales and Scotland for instance? The answer is radical sectarianism. Religion is the petrol that was used to start the conflict and it's the petrol that was used to keep it burning for so long. Why were British Troops sent there in the 60's place? To protect the Catholics from the Protestant majority. British troops were brought in active service on 14 August 1969 in Derry. Troops were also deployed in Belfast on 15 August after a turbulent night in which Protestants threw petrol bombs in houses and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (http://www.triskelle.eu/history/royalulsterconstabulary.php?index=060.170.020.020. 050) (RUC) was using Browing machine guns on Catholic rioters.

6. If you believe that the fundamentalist Muslims want a caliphate simply for power then you're sadly mistaken. Even with power extremists like that continue to exert their will to appease their god. Look at the Wahhabists (plenty of power and yet still brutally repress people for morality crimes) or the Taliban. Faith is everything to these people.

7. Crusaders believed that the Holy Land was theirs because of their faith and the book they followed, to compare it to territorial claims made of nationalistic ambition is ridiculous.

8. "While there is evidence that it was taken over by some rather sadistic people with their own agenda, the reason for it's existence was quite simply to keep people in line with the Pope." That is plainly and simply absolute bollocks. I find absolving religon of blame with regards to the inquisition 'disgusting' and 'insulting' because I am of Sephardi origin. The Jews of Spain were not brutally oppressed because of they posed a threat to the Pope and Catholocism, they were brutally murdered and driven out through religious fanaticism.

9. I'm honestly not blaming religion for all the worlds ills, however I think lessening it by suggesting that it is merely a tool of man and is only equal to or less than other factors is ignoring its importance and insulting to its victims.

[Jocky]

[wades in on points of historical fact]


if you think that the English Civil War wasn't inspired by and instigated because of religion I suggest you read up on the difference between the two warring sides

I have read up on this, and if you are saying that religion was the main motivation for the majority of those who fought in the Wars of the Isles, then I disagree with you.

There was a crucial secular constitutional question at stake - the extent of the authority of the Crown. Disagreement about this frequently split families and communities who were all of the same religious affiliation.


Northern Ireland is more territorial granted, but what's the difference between it and other lands that have been conquered by the English Protestants.....Cornwall, Wales and Scotland for instance?

Here is the difference: The British settlers (mostly Scots Protestants) planted in the North of Ireland were encouraged to settle there for political reasons, not religious ones. This did not happen in other parts of the Isles. Religion has indeed been a tool used to sustain the flames of conflict, but the origins of the conflict lie in the British government's use of colonisation as a political tool.

Incidentally, English conquest of the rest of the Isles was more or less completed centuries before the divide between Protestant and Catholic existed. It was not actuated by religious intolerance.


I find absolving religon of blame with regards to the inquisition 'disgusting' and 'insulting' because I am of Sephardi origin.

It is probably reasonable to say that the motivation of a lot of the individuals who actually carried out the atrocities of the Inquisition lay in personal religious faith. However, that is not necessarily true of the motivation of those who made the overall political decisions. I don't think this 'absolves' religion - it merely indicates that religion was not the only factor at work.


I'm honestly not blaming religion for all the worlds ills, however I think lessening it by suggesting that it is merely a tool of man and is only equal to or less than other factors is ignoring its importance and insulting to its victims.

Religion has indeed inspired many people to perform bloody and terrible acts - but so have lots of other things. You seem to argue that religion is in some way a more important/significant factor than these other things, but I am unclear exactly why you think this. Can you enlighten me on this point?

[dllr]

Jocky, thanks for wading in. I'll answer you and then I'll take a bow (this could go on for ever)

1. As far as I was aware Charles shared his father's position on the power of the crown (James had described kings as "little Gods on Earth", chosen by God to rule in accordance with the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings") and one of the outcomes of the war was that the monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship in England came to an end, and the victors consolidated the already-established Protestant ascendancy in Ireland. The roots of the wars can also be traced to Charles I attempt to impose an Anglican prayer book in Scotland.

2. Thanks for the correction, however I did note that the Northern Ireland conflict was mostly about territory although excaserbated by sectarianism.

3. Wherer the Inquisition is concerned there may have been other 'factors' however these were minor compared to the faith which drove it. The motivation of those who were in charge? History suggests it was based on religious persecution. The first one was set up to combat heresy such as Catharsism and the Waldensians. The second aimed at Jews and and Muslims, forcing them to convert or die. After the 17th century there were moves to use the Inquisition as a secret police within Spain but this was after religious disputes waned and the religious 'threat' by Judaism had been cleansed violently.

4. I personally believe that Religion, above all factors in man's history has been an inspiration, a justification and tool of man's inhumanity to man.

[Ardbeg]

I understand it thus - "In the Islamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) doctrinal sense the term refers to a person who does not recognize Allah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah) or the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) and hides, denies, or covers the truth. In cultural terms, it is a derogatory term[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir#_note-Islamonline.net) used to describe an unbeliever, non-Muslims" Wiki

Part of my education encompassed being taught about various religions, including Islam. What I was taught was that 'kafir' did not refer to all non-Muslims, but referred to people who were atheists and did not believe in God. Again, whether or not a person was a kafir was not for humans to decide...that right was one which Allah alone had. It was incumbent on Muslims to treat all people with courtesy and respect regardless of their belief system because they were all a part of God's creation. Similarly, jihad meant a personal struggle to suppress the actions of Satan, the evil one and reinstate the natural order of things, i.e., a state of being Muslim, a believer in God, in Allah.

I am not in a position to provide a ready reference for this - its based on the memory of what I was taught in school. I will try and do a little bit of research to see where you can find out more about this. Neither am I arguing the relative merits or otherwise of this belief system, nor the theology of it, merely sharing what I had been taught.

Ok - but most of us have only the Western media.....

So are you saying that because you dont have access to other information or viewpoints, you're going to believe what you see/read and treat it as the whole truth?

True - crucial for whom?

The point I was making (therefore, crucial for 'what' rather than 'whom').

I thought it was established - its the second largest religion in the world.....1375 years old is hardly "new".

Established does not refer to chronolgy but rather acceptance within a larger mainstream population. Judging by the way most Westerners perceive Islam and Muslims, I cant help conclude it is an 'outsider' even now.

I don't know.....questions like what? The question I asked was "Is this about domination and power or making sure everyone follows their religion? And what is the difference?"

The questions I was thinking about were more along the lines of -

Why are increasing numbers of Muslims feeling militant?

Is this a religious problem or once more concerned with culture and identity?

Have we discharged our obligation to open dialogues and attempt open and fair interractions with people of different faiths and cultures? (I hope someone asks me (personally) this question - I have a lot to say about it, being fresh off the boat).

If we consider ourselves a free and liberal society, why do we expect people from other cultures and faiths to conform to our world views?