Is all religion poison?

Christopher Hitchens thinks so.
In his new book, 'God is Not Great:Why Religion Poisons Everything' the vitriolic atheist denounces belief in a higher power as nothing more than "wish-thinking".

Hitchens says studying the Bible as a boy was his first experience of textual analysis, but now an evangelical secularist he says his childhood understanding of Christ led him to question why, if the blind could be healed, he did not end blindness?

The man who says he's only prayed once in his life thinks religion is "violent and allied to racism" he claims that the "argument about faith is the foundation and origin of all arguments". But it is not the end, he also thinks that we will always have religion (despite his best efforts).

You can email him your questions which will be answered online on Tuesday.

Comments

[Hugh Manitas]

Highly likely Alan, it never ceases to amaze me just how easily faith groups of all colours assume an importance based on their own dogmatic constructs. I do not know if there are gods and neither do they. It is arrogance of the highest order to try to affect social policy on behalf of us all from foundations based upon the sinking sands in which they all flounder. I see no evidence of gods, but I certainly do believe in the existence of red hot religion. We have witnessed the way in which, for 2000 years it has sought to manipulate people; from gentle insidious exhortation for control purposes, through the unholiest of wars, to bombs and bloody beheadings. Its proponents are interested in the exercising of power, based on their own versions of reality. Increasingly it is seen to be what it actually is - an anachronistic residue from an unenlightened age. For me its relevance should be in the form of a benign dimension within the lives of those who choose still to embrace it. The danger is in the consistent haemorrhage of air-based values that miraculously turn assumptions into facts affecting all and sundry. In some forms it tramples over race, gender and human rights.

[alan]

A lot of arrogant remarks here by believers about atheists. Two points: 1) I don't need to read books on astrology to know that it is nonsense, likewise with theology. 2) People have believed in lots of gods - Ra, Zeus, Thor for example. Today, I suspect, nobody believes in them any longer. Those who did are gone. The conclusion is obvious. God or gods only exist as long as their believers exist, because gods exist only in the heads of their believers.

[John]

Reading " The Hitchens brothers: Anatomy of a row" [ 06/11/07 news.independent.co.uk], one comes to understand the brothers Hitchens, Peter and Christopher, both journalists, both early grounded in the International Socialists as youth, with Christopher, according to Peter, having developed an early Trotsky-like hatred for the Pope, which Peter alleges has been maintained. Peter suggests about Christopher [ who admits to regularly drinking enough to "stun or kill a mule" ] " there ia always , in the atheistic struggle with God, the fight against temptation. If it didn't matter to you why write a book about how wrong it is ".

[Joshua]

Tim, thanks and much to agree with.

Re. faith schools I suspect we also agree on much.

However I think that diverstity, as in ecosystems, is linked to stability. Variety of group identity builds social cohesion. It may not at first feel intuitive but I believe our connections as a nation is built on small groups, like local communities, schools, churches, and families.

So I think all kinds of school, grammar, tech, specialist sports, Muslim, C of E, Catholic, even 'humanist' schools, is a good thing. Too much uniformity might be politically correct but I just don't think it works.

[Tim]

Joshua, in you last posting to JPearce, you appear to make a case for separating religious structures from the state apparatus and define 'religion' as a personal matter. A benign belief, by definition, cannot be poisonous I agree, but the wider argument encompasses the acts and agendas of institutionalized religious movements, and historically it can be demonstrated that they too have had a seriously damaging impact on the world as a whole. My argument is that whilst groups based on an ideology will certainly have a collective view on aspects of social policy, they should not be in a privileged position which enables those views to be dictated - either through the legislature or maintained through nothing other than undemocratic historical precedent. For example, with faith schools we have arrived at the current position through a set of social values that no longer generally apply and should be changed. And whilst change is strongly resisted by religious groups, to maintain the status quo serves only to preserve the values of those groups, ignoring the pluralism within society.

[Joshua]

JP, of course.

I think you would agree that atheism is not necessarily a violent or harmful set of ideas or principles - it is quite varied ranging from agnosticism and humanism to Marxism, Communism etc.

But athiest governments have in the last 200 years been appalling.

I view religion and religious structures in the same way. Relgion, I would argue, is generally benign and I don't see it as poison.

I would agree with you that religious hiearchies are not so benign, tho' my somewhat limited experience of them in the UK would suggest that they are not as poisonous as it made out by Hitchens and co. As I have said before if you are saying that they are poisonous then I might think your language was a bit OTT but I would not disagree very strongly.

You say the two things are symbiotic which of course means that they are totally separate but exist happily together - I think, maybe, you mean one cannot exist without the other, yes? In which case I would disagree.

I think it is perfectly possible to be religious with little or no religious structure. If you look at certain religious communities from Amish and Monasteries to Sufi's and Buddhists there seems to be a way of living a religious life without huge hierarchical political power structures. They don't make the news but I think they are very positive examples of religious life.

[Simon Icke]

People have done much harm throughout history in the name of religion. That's why if asked I say I am not religious as I reject the outward pious ritual forms of religion which is often just a veneer that has no substance. I am not religious but I do have a deep personal faith and know Jesus to be my personal Saviour, friend and Lord. There are many who claim to be religious but do not know the Love of God in their hearts. Many of these religious types do much harm to the church and the Christian faith. What really matters is the peace and love in the hearts of true believers, who have found the love of God through their deep faith in Jesus Christ. This love comes from The Holy Spirit, people who have found such faith and been born again to The Holy Spirit ( John 3 ). These believers should not do any harm to anyone and should be an example of true unconditional love and peace on earth.

[J Pearce]

"Maybe your main confusion is with religion and religious institutions. You seem to roll religion and the church into one."

Joshua, please explain to me how one can exist without the other. It seems a fundamentally symbiotic relationship...

[Tim]

Joshua, considering toxicity is necessarily difficult, since to accurately define 'religion', either substantive or functional, most scholars would agree has not really been achieved. A seven dimensional model was proposed by Ninian Smart in his 'The Nature of Religion' but conflict between religious and philosophical ideals, whilst helping to distinguish religious autonomy from those standing outside of it, also emphasized its many-sidedness. Distinguishing contemporary or new religions from traditional faiths throws a further dimension into the argument; and Simon's sermon was from a Christian perspective after all.

For me humanism is more of an attitude than a worldview, and my personal take on where religion becomes poisonous is at the point
where, either through violent intervention or through privilege or control, it affects the lives of people who choose to remain unconnected with it, or whose personal religious beliefs differ. It follows then, that for me, religion is a private personal matter which, since we all differ with regard to its relevance and importance, should remain distinct from the public sphere. I cannot conceive that public policy should be based on some sort of one-sided mystical panacea based on the arcane musings of one group or another.

I'm glad we agree over hierarchies on one level! But hierarchies are absolutely required within the Christian ideology, not least for proponents to maintain an unhealthy distance whilst busily judging others and themselves. The problem is that arguably the whole carousel has been based upon the need for the internalization of Christian beliefs as the status quo; ie traditionally we have been encouraged to accept it as a normative example of western necessity which has, until the current era, tended to stabilize it. I contend that hierarchies of holiness or arcane worth, either within religions or where they seep into wider society are divisive and elitist - witness the ridiculous enquiry over the pantomime Bishop of Southwark; his elevated position directly related to the levels of opprobium heaped upon him. All world faiths seems to me to be liberally infused with eltist gradations where, in the absence of any tangible deities, various groups of otherwise lost individuals pin their hopes and aspirations on the imaginary deified presence of another. Within the Catholic faith the teaching that a holy spirit enables the Pope to make infallible pronouncements on matters of doctrine or faith was ratified as late as 1870 by Vatican 1, in a maelstrom of Victorian piety. The Pope of course remains a human being with a colourful past. Slavery comes in many guises, from slavish devotion to unbridled exploition although, I think, few would find my reference to the abolition of slavery ambiguous. If you are implying that an increase in Islamic fundamentalism or Christian evangelicalism is a reason for celebration, I despair. For me it's in the same box as being delighted that we have secured yet another multi-million pound arms deal with some junta or other. As for my comment on post-theism, you are right, I remain an optimist. The world is showing an increased number of moral people, who care about human rights, driven by an urgency based upon shared human values and mutual experience rather than from variously interpreted, unsubstantiated cloud-based metaphysics.

[Joshua]

Again thanks Tim, your last post to Simon was reassuring.

[Tessa]

JP,

I can see where you're coming from, and the case you outlined is certainly valid, but your posts are giving me the impression that you feel it is only religious institutions that cause problems. You said that the Church feels,

"unemcumbered to pontificate upon and interfere with the democratically elected Government of the day (the recent Abortion, Gay adoption and Church schools rows being evidence of that)."

I don't agree with some denominations' condemnation of homosexuality, but I think that there is nothing wrong in challenging the government. Quite the opposite, in fact. Furthermore, you write as though it is only the religious institutions that "interfere", but I have been part of anti-war protests that are nothing to do with religious groups. I am a member of Amnesty International who "interfere" in government institutions world wide if there is a violation of human rights and, again, Amnesty is religiously neutral.

I think that the friction between theistic and atheistic culture has come about by the fault of individuals on both sides; some religous individuals cannot accept that atheists are not religous and some athiests cannot accept that theists are not atheists. For me, this is a result of misunderstanding each others' beliefs and reasons for holding these particular beliefs.

[Joshua]

Thanks Tim.

The debate is 'is all religion is poison?' and not "some bits are okay but when it gets beyond the private into the public it is." but which I think is your position. Some here, possibly yourself, confuse religion with religions institutions, some take religion to mean Christianity.

My question about your worldview being superior came from your saying " religion does indeed become toxic at the exact point where speculative theories become reality in the minds of their proponents, who then subvert the moral codes of others, or insist that their worldview is superior" .

It read to me that that was exactly your position. I think you feel humanism is a superior worldview to religion, yes? Would you vote against religious codes of conduct in the public sphere and hope to relegate religion to the realm of personal and private rather than corporate and political? I am not arguing against you by the way - I am just trying to clarify as to why you were so rude about Simon Icke's post and whether your criticism was not somewhat ironic.

I agree with you that " Hierarchies of imagined superiority or degrees of worth amongst people do not feature in my view of the world" but this is classic Christianity, as was Jesus' uber political correctness re women and slaves.

By the way I have seen reports that there is even more slavery today than that any other time in history but I am glad we agree it has no place in the modern world.

I think your "it seems likely that a post-theist worldview is a real possibility." is optimistic. The recent rise of Christian evangelicalism and Islamic fundamentalism as well as the post-postmodern search for truth and absolutes looks to me like religion is on the up.

[Tim]

Simon, how closely do you relate to your interpretation of Jesus? Your last dramatic post almost seems to suggest transubstantiation or, bizarrely, that you willingly identify with persecution as an integral part of your faith? If you see those who disagree with your theories as personally mocking or attacking you, are you not in danger of approaching Joshua's concerns over absolutism or superiority?

You quote, arguably, one of the most commonly known texts in the Christian Bible, adding your own Messianic rider 'to all men and women of the world'. Whilst I agree with the sentiment, it does seem rather patronising in its presentation. For Joshua, your previous 'sermon' posting was a way of focussing on Jesus within the debate over whether or not religion is poisonous. It seemed to me that it had very little to do with it but, because it clearly exercised Joshua, I would suggest that its function was more related to making Christian believers feel more secure. In any event, we are not so far apart in a desire for a more peaceful world. We simply differ on how it can be achieved. At no time did I intend rudeness towards your posting, as Joshua suggests, unfortunately fomenting discord rather than vigorous debate.

[Tim]

Joshua, the debate is not about whether or not constituent parts of one particular faith, e.g. Christian icons, present themselves as toxic. It is more related to cause and effect, ie how much damage organised religion continues to wreak on a world scale. The whole ethos surrounding the Christian Jesus is benign surely. But the argument has inconsistencies. For example it would be difficult to interpret something metaphysical as toxic, since it exists only in some people's theories. You keep asking me whether or not I regard my worldview as superior; superior in relation to what? I regard human beings as equal and this must include a right to hold personal beliefs. Hierarchies of imagined superiority or degrees of worth amongst people do not feature in my view of the world, but this does not preclude my freedon to disagree with others - particularly if I believe that their effect on the world may, in part, be harmful. I have no idea if there are gods. I object to ideologies which assert that there are without a scrap of evidence, and who then make and seek to install policies based on their own clearly superior worldview.

[Joshua]

Not being terribly sure Heredal would quote accurately I found this:

"The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit," Benedict said as he opened a two-week bishops' conference aimed at re-energizing the church's influence in Latin America.

But he added that unfettered capitalism and globalization, blamed by many in the region for the deep divide between the rich and poor, gives "rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness."

I read a fascinating history of the Conquistadors back in the 70's (hey,I was very young) and it was very interesting to read about the interplay between religious missionary zeal, political empire building and the accompanying mercenary greed.

Having travelled around South America I know its problems - the endemic racism, widespread poverty and of course all the environmental issues - a big topic.

[Simon Icke]

I just watched the Film 'Mary Mother of Jesus' The people shouted for Barabbas rather than Jesus even though they knew him to be a thief.

' When they mocked Jesus he refused to defend himself and endured the baying crowd who shouted Crucify Him! Crucify Him! Even though people spat at him and showed their despise, he didn't react. He knew he had to pay the price for their sin and the world's sin. Even at his last he was forgiving His persecutors...' Forgive them Father as they know not what they do'.

To those that try to mock me or attack me personally. I respond with the forgiving love of Jesus my Saviour, and say the same today to the persecutors of Jesus and his followers on these boards...'

'Forgive them Father as they know not what they do'

Peace, Love and Goodwill to all men and women of the world.

Simon

[Joshua]

Tim - no way! How can you think that a sermon about Jesus is irrelevant to this blog? I thought it was a timely reminder and very apt. Look at Jesus - is there anything about Him that is poisonous? No. And Christianity is about following Him - not complicated, not full of ritual or stuffiness, not power mongering just following. It is as radical today as it was 2000 years ago.

And your worldview, is it superior?

[Joshua]

Again, Tessa, much to agree with. An interesting theist/atheist vs agnostic few posts!

My personal experience of 'religious power bases' is that they are not very 'worldly' and have little money but are among those institutions that are passionate about helping the poor and are alongside any who are helping the homeless, drug addicts and refugees, here in the UK and around the world.

Look at the Salvation Army - they are amazing.

[Joshua]

I knew I liked Tessa. I wholly agree with her.

JP. Sorry for mistaking you for an atheist, but from what you have said there seemed little room for doubt. Various quotes:
"religion is indeed "poison", ..Religious fundamentalism of any kind is the root of all evil in this world....Faith is based on one of the most fundamental of human emotions, Fear. ..under a Christian theocracy, chances are we wouldn't even have the lightbulb by now...Religious scholarship is a self-perpetuating gravy train...I utterly reject the claim that he was the "Son of God". "

...as well as others that I have already argued against.

Maybe your main confusion is with religion and religious institutions. You seem to roll religion and the church into one.

Not all Oil is Shell Oil. Shell is a company that sells oil but it isn't 'oil'.

You may feel that the 'oil' either does not exist in the first place or you cannot make an adequate judgement - which is fine. What is not fine is to confuse the two and think you have the truth of it.

If at the end of it all you are saying that you, Hitchens and co believe some religious institutions are corrupt and poisonous then I do not think we have much of an argument - but that is, to my mind, not the topic.

[J Pearce]

Tessa,

In response to your post, I would point you at the Bishop of Southwark thread, where Heredal quotes what Pope Benedict said on his recent visit to South America:

"He contradicted pretty much every historical detail known about indigenous "conversions" to Catholicism in the Americas by claiming that Brazil's indigenous had been "silently longing" for Christianity when the Catholic priests arrived. Thus, claimed the pope, "the Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas." And in its missionizing, the church had performed a wonderful duty by "purifying" indigenous peoples, and that any reversion to their ancestral practices must be considered a step backwards."

Talk about re-writing history! How much proof is required that Christianity - in this case, Catholicism - is responsible for destroying the lives of whole swathes of people throughout history, by forcing them to convert (no doubt at the point of a sharp instrument). "Purifying"! How much more fascistic do you want to get?! The Church has been responsible, over a period of hundreds of years, of forcing a considerable amount of innocent people to convert throughout the world, most often against their will.

Which makes me laugh when I see some Christians defend their religion as "peaceful" and is about "conversion by persuasion"! To say "there might be cases in history of individuals' lives being detrimented by religious groups" is an understatement, would be doing a disservice to the term understatement.

And now that the Church has its power base, it usually feels unemcumbered to pontificate upon and interfere with the democratically elected Government of the day (the recent Abortion, Gay adoption and Church schools rows being evidence of that). I don't doubt that on a local, individual level, the Church can and does help people in a positive manner. But when it comes to defending their privileges, the religious hierachies are usually the first to cry "foul", if they feel that their power or influence is in some way threatened.

If that’s a Marxist interpretation, then hell yes, I'm a Marxist!

[Tom Jackson]

"In my view, atheism can be just as 'poisonous', irrational and ridiculous as some people suggest religious belief to be."

Tessa, given your standpoint, your contribution is as refreshing as it is pertinent.

As someone with deeply held Christian beliefs but always ready to examine and consider any contrary opinion or perspective, I sometimes wonder who is the most arrogant or unyielding; I as a Christian or the secularist, the atheist who attacks my belief with the condescending, know-all attitude of the only person to maintain an intelligent, balanced and realistic approach to life.

[Tim]

Joshua, Simon's direct lift was merely an imitation of the imitated, only relevant as a rallying call to believers in the occult and meaning little else to others. It added nothing to either side of the debate. Moreover, I should have thought it quite obvious that I recognise a danger from those people who seek forcibly to impose their ideologies on others. Nothing within the spirit of humanism would support that position or lead to violence - quite the reverse. Unfortunately the rest of us have to live with the consequences of actions by obsessives or the ultra pious, which range from seeking to represent their varying theories within the social framework; education, the legislature, the media, and easy generalizations regarding codes of morality; to beheading people they disagree with, ruinous wars and detonating explosives in populated areas. I sought to emphasize the point where I believe holding personal beliefs tips over into toxicity.

[Tessa]

"...organised religious power bases (such as the Catholic Church) are dangerous, as they exist merely to perpetuate their own self-justifying ideology..."

I'll have to disagree with this point as well. This, to me, is an unfairly negative view of religous 'power bases' as you call it. Yes, there might be cases in history of individuals' lives being detrimented by religious groups, but I really don't think that it is reasonable to suggest that this is their only aim. Religious groups often have the aims to help those in poverty, as just one example, not to keep them there whilst they "...maintain a priviledged position within society."

(Just out of curiosity, are you a fan of Marx's work? I noticed that you feel the Church "... has no moral qualms about destroying the lives of individuals to maintain a priviledge position within society". That's very similar to his idea that religion is the 'opium of the people'.)

[J Pearce]

"If you want another atheist view read Tessa's post above ( I am sure you have). She has for me understood and reflected back something that much more accurate."

More accurate in comparison to what? It seems to me all Tessa has domne is "reflect back" an interpretation that happens to coincide closely with your own perceptions. Just because I put forward a perception which jars with what you believe religion is all about, it doesn't invalidate it.

I would quibble with your assertion about my "atheist" position - I'm not an atheist for a start! And to be honest Joshua, with the greatest of respect, it seems to me that you continue to argue from the "religious elitist" standpoint.

I've not seen any evidence or argument to sway my opinion, that is, personal religious belief is not necessarily a bad thing. But organised religious power bases (such as the Catholic Church) are dangerous, as they exist merely to perpetuate their own self-justifying ideology and they demonstrably have no moral qualms about destroying the lives of individuals in their effort to maintain their privileged position within society.

[Tessa]

JP,

"As a religious adherent, you are the worst placed person to assess the qualitative impact of religion on society. Those of us “on the outside” are far better placed to make that judgement."

I have to absolutely disagree with this! As an athiest, I view myself to have exactly the same bias level of bias as some religious individuals. Yes, a religious person might be more inclined to accept statements that support their religious outlook on the world. At the same time, an athiest is biased towards the atheistic point of view and is likely to grasp at ideas supporting this.

In my view, atheism can be just as 'poisonous', irrational and rediculous as some people suggest religious belief to be.

[Joshua]

Simon, ignore Tim's rudeness. I liked the sermon - it was cool way of getting the focus on Jesus - which is, I think, key to the 'is all religion poison' question.

Tim, can you tell me if you are one of those who would " insist that their worldview is superior,"?

[Joshua]

JP Re-read your posts and, no, I don't think I overlooked any of your qualifications. To me what you have argued the usual atheist 'shooting from the hip - telling it like it is' mythology.

If you want another atheist view read Tessa's post above ( I am sure you have). She has for me understood and reflected back something that much more accurate.

And, hey, I like Churches when they are empty too!

[Tim]

The sadness in Simon Icke's posting is palpable. The sermon he reproduces might have been aimed at non-believers, but in fact it was directed at Christians in Detroit at a time when race was a considerable issue in America. Rhetorically, it could have referred to absolutely anything because it possesses artistic and literary modernist credentials in which subject matter is sublated by aesthetic form. Like Joyce's Ulysses the content is a reduction of experience to expression for the sake of expression. Its only value is that it is a primary source for discovering the way in which sermons were delivered in America in the mid 1970s.

Mr Icke's posting adds absolutely nothing to the debate over whether or not religion is toxic. Its purpose seemingly is to reinforce his own religious beliefs in the face of others questioning them. J Pearce implies that the ability to be a free thinker in a world in which other people constantly seek to impose their own arcane beliefs on others, is a valuable asset. The world is full of obsessive religious zealots, waving lists of impossible rules and codes of behaviour, based upon their own supernatural theories. Historically the world has moved forward intellectually - no-one would adhere to the medical diagnoses of Roman doctors. Religion however remains in an unhealthy stasis, bound by selective ancient texts representative of an antique, undeveloped mindset; one from which adherents cannot move on. For some people the very oldness of these writings adds gravitas to their position, validating the texts as sacred. Time actually does nothing whatsoever to prove or disprove whether or not there are gods and religious believers of all colours have absolutely no idea, in reality, what the meaning or purpose of the world might be, or even if it has any. Losing oneself in a western constellation of stained glass, rituals, early music and medieval paraphernalia, might, in the short term, water down the fear of human mortality, but to seek to drive the world's motors based on this air-based fuel is nothing short of speculative. From a humanist perspective, personal belief is an absolute human right and should not be conceded, but religion does indeed become toxic at the exact point where speculative theories become reality in the minds of their proponents, who then subvert the moral codes of others, or insist that their worldview is superior, justifying the rancour and violence which is always the human result. It was ever thus, but to regard the position as inevitable is to fail to address it. Much in the same way that slavery was finally abolished, or, 500 years after the Renaissance, the position and status of women became greatly elevated, it seems likely that a post-theist worldview is a real possibility.

[Joshua]

JP

You just did it again!

"I understand Faith and Religion perfectly well. I understand that it is an irrational belief (in that it is not based on a rational assessment of the world we exist within)"

No. It is entirely rational.

I have not yet heard a coherent explanation of the creation of matter from an atheistic standpoint. Here's Dawkins attempt "the origin of the whole universe, is a very, very difficult question. It’s one that scientists are working on. It’s one that they hope eventually to solve." That is faith in science.

Faith.

But you have my apologies if I sounded patronising, I was going for exasperation.

I do believe in God, but not Dawkin's God. I think that 90% of what is said in the name of religion is a human activity, it might even be higher. It is group dynamic, herd instinct, community or whatever you want to call it. But if there is a God and if He does have some kind of impact on our lives then that 10% or 1% is worth looking for or being a part of.

The good thing about atheism is that it rightly exposes false beliefs and systems and holds up a mirror to us all - theists, deists, atheists, agnostics alike.

The bad thing about atheism, and the point of my last post, is that sometimes it holds up a mirror to something else entirely - something that looks like a creation of its own imagination.

Your box, as you call it.

I will read your other posts and see if I have overlooked some of your qualifications - apologies if I have!

[J Pearce]

”JP - you are clutching at strawmen.”

Here we go again...

Joshua, you do me a disservice. Read my posts. I think you have deliberately ignored some of my qualifications on certain points. I understand Fatih and Religion perfectly well. I understand that it is an irrational belief (in that it is not based on a rational assessment of the world we exist within). I accept that Faith and religion exist. My opinion is that it they are flawed. My opinion is, that they are based on human “fallibilities”, not any Divine understanding or presence.

I believe that Dawkins and Hitchens understand religion perfectly Ok as well. They too have rejected it for the flawed ideology that it is. For you to patronize people by telling them that they “don’t understand” is, to me, the perfect encapsulation of religious bigotry. It is the inevitable assumption that the religious always “know best”, even when they pretend not to. It is mindsets like that which inevitably lead to intolerance, then persecution and ultimately death on an industrial scale. Sorry, but that is historical fact.

The bottom line is that you are religious. For you to make value judgements about the intrinsic value of religion is like asking a child whether sweets are good. The answer is inevitable. As a religious adherent, you are the worst placed person to assess the qualitative impact of religion on society. Those of us “on the outside” are far better placed to make that judgement.

By the way, my world is not a “sad, dark place”. Quite the opposite, in fact. I can find beauty and “spiritual” fulfillment in nature, in sport, in my son, to name just a few things. Hell, I even enjoy Churches in a melancholy, existential way (when they are empty, natch)! But I do not require religion as a conduit to these things, in the slightest. I may have a passing acquaintance with “God”, but on my own terms. I do not define my metaphysical “experiences” within the rigid, inflexible constructs of a man-made ideology (at least, I think I don't, although I stand to be corrected). Neither do I feel the need to subjugate myself to an ideology which values repression of the human spirit and an observance of iron age morality, above true spiritual freedom and the dynamic and constantly evolving potential that humans can aspire to.

If I may be so bold – your religion places artificial restrictions on your experience of reality. If you are happy with that, so be it. I liken it to living in a box. We all live in boxes of one nature or another. I don’t deny that I live in a box too. I just happen to believe that the religious live in a smaller box than those of us – like myself – who can think “outside” of the religious box.

[Simon Icke]

"That's My King"
The late Dr. S.M. Lockeridge, a preacher from San Diego, California who said these words in a sermon in Detroit in 1976

My King was born King. The Bible says He's a Seven Way King. He's the King of the Jews - that's an Ethnic King. He's the King of Israel - that's a National King. He's the King of righteousness. He's the King of the ages. He's the King of Heaven. He's the King of glory. He's the King of kings and He is the Lord of lords. Now that's my King.

Well, I wonder if you know Him. Do you know Him? Don't try to mislead me. Do you know my King? David said the Heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. My King is the only one of whom there are no means of measure that can define His limitless love. No far seeing telescope can bring into visibility the coastline of the shore of His supplies. No barriers can hinder Him from pouring out His blessing. He's enduringly strong. He's entirely sincere. He's eternally steadfast. He's immortally graceful. He's imperially powerful. He's impartially merciful. That's my King.

He's God's Son. He's the sinner's saviour. He's the centrepiece of civilization. He stands alone in Himself. He's honest. He's unique. He's unparalleled. He's unprecedented. He's supreme. He's pre-eminent. He's the grandest idea in literature. He's the highest personality in philosophy. He's the supreme problem in higher criticism. He's the fundamental doctrine of historic theology. He's the carnal necessity of spiritual religion. That's my King.

He's the miracle of the age. He's the superlative of everything good that you choose to call Him. He's the only one able to supply all our needs simultaneously. He supplies strength for the weak. He's available for the tempted and the tried. He sympathizes and He saves. He's the Almighty God who guides and keeps all his people. He heals the sick. He cleanses the lepers. He forgives sinners. He discharged debtors. He delivers the captives. He defends the feeble. He blesses the young. He serves the unfortunate. He regards the aged. He rewards the diligent and He beautifies the meek. That's my King.

Do you know Him? Well, my King is a King of knowledge. He's the wellspring of wisdom. He's the doorway of deliverance. He's the pathway of peace. He's the roadway of righteousness. He's the highway of holiness. He's the gateway of glory. He's the master of the mighty. He's the captain of the conquerors. He's the head of the heroes. He's the leader of the legislatures. He's the overseer of the over comers. He's the governor of governors. He's the prince of princes. He's the King of kings and He's the Lord of lords. That's my King.

His office is manifold. His promise is sure. His light is matchless. His goodness is limitless. His mercy is everlasting. His love never changes. His Word is enough. His grace is sufficient. His reign is righteous. His yoke is easy and His burden is light. I wish I could describe Him to you . . .but He's indescribable. He's indescribable. That's my King.

He's incomprehensible. He's invincible. He's irresistible. I'm coming to tell you this, that the heavens of heavens can't contain Him, let alone some man explain Him. You can't get Him out of your mind. You can't get Him off of your hands. You can't outlive Him and you can't live without Him. The Pharisees couldn't stand Him, but they found out they couldn't stop Him. Pilate couldn't find any fault in Him. The witnesses couldn't get their testimonies to agree about Him. Herod couldn't kill Him. Death couldn't handle Him and the grave couldn't hold Him. That's my King.

He always has been and He always will be. I'm talking about the fact that He had no predecessor and He'll have no successor. There's nobody before Him and there'll be nobody after Him. You can't impeach Him and He's not going to resign. That's my King! That's my King!
Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory. Well, all the power belongs to my King. We're around here talking about black power and white power and green power, but in the end all that matters is God's power. Thine is the power. Yeah. And the glory. We try to get prestige and honour and glory for ourselves, but the glory is all His. Yes. Thine is the Kingdom and the power and glory, forever and ever and ever and ever. How long is that? And ever and ever and ever and ever. And when you get through with all of the 'ever's, then . . .Amen.
By Dr. S. M. Lockeridge

[Joshua]

JP - you are clutching at strawmen.

I hope I am not being too unkind here but you are simply not listening. One of the main criticisms of Hitchens, Dawkins and yourself is that you simply do not understand faith or religion. Your brand of atheism seems to be about telling us what we believe, and then showing us how ridiculous we are.

However many times we tell you that is not what we believe you keep telling us it is - exasperating!

One of the reasons I contribute to Ruth's blogs is that dont want to let the completely barmy notions of Hitchens et al go unanswered.

Let's pass by the 'religion is based on fear' bit as I think we are not going to shift that one from your grip. You think that Jesus died "to placate their dieties in order to assuage their fear" to quote your words, yes? If that is so then, ta-da, it is a done deal. No more fear. Jesus has done it once and for all and we are, to use religious language, justified by faith.

So 2000 years of a religion not based on fear, then.

Now here is something you get right "Christianity gives the illusion that humans have free will, but assumes that God exists, therefore all humans must inevitably acquiesce to God. Ergo, free will only exists within a system that is bounded by "God".

Materialism, which is I guess what you believe in, cannot allow free will. You are a product bounded and limited by genetics and environment and unable to choose freely. So much for morality then. And as others have said everything must then be a powerplay. If that is your world is a dark sad place.

Your comment about religion and genetic research is ironic considering Francis Collins the Head of the Human Genome Project - have you read his book 'Language if God'? - great read.

Simon - really good thoughts, thank you.

[Tim]

To have faith necessarily proposes doubt, otherwise faith cannot exist and belief becomes a certainty. Some people claim that gods exist without doubt and therefore imply denial of the concept of faith. So for these people, that gods exist is a certainty. A certainty requires evidence for it to exist, otherwise it is a theory. These people have no evidence, so their assertion that gods exist remains a theory. Equally, atheists cannot say with certainty that gods do not exist.

Regarding the earlier postings in which some comments centre on a dearth of atheist academic credentials and which suggests that few have studied religion in depth, an in-depth knowledge of religion is not necessary in order to form a moral view on its conceptual framework. This is wholly distinct from its written histories,which unfortunately provide only the 'evidence' that the Christian religion exists. All of the material dimensions; sacred buildings, relics, artefacts and written texts are purely a journalistic record of human attempts to underpin religious theories. Gods may exist.

[J Pearce]

Just some quick (cough) responses:

"Fundamental to Christianity is the idea that humans are created with free will."

Yes and no. Christianity gives the illusion that humans have free will, but assumes that God exists, therefore all humans must inevitably acquiesce to God. Ergo, free will only exists within a system that is bounded by "God". This is manifested in, for example, the religious opposition to genetic research, where scientists are accused of "playing God". So "free will" is essentially a relative concept - bounded by moral tenets described or derived from the Christian belief system.

"How and why are you so certain that religion is based entirely on fear?"

Because that’s how religion has developed! Early man created "Gods" to symobolise all that he could not understand or explain - and thus was frightened of. Early religions have numerous rituals where sacrifices are made to appease their Gods - using gifts as a means to placate their dieties in order to assuage their fear, of whatever phenomena they happened to be frightened of.

Even Christianity is based on the notion of sacrifice!

Obviously, as the more robust religions developed into systems of control, they have become more sophisticated. Your fear of the unknown is placated, due to the sophisticated ideological and cultural conditioning that Christianity provides. You also have the benefit of science to provide an alternative means of explaining your experiences - the amount of "known unknowns" (to quote that great philosopher D. Rumsfeld) becomes smaller as each day passes. But even Christianity still capitulates to fear on certain subjects - such as the example I mentioned above, genetic research.

"This is the classic problem of evil…"

I think "evil" can be explained in purely psychological, sociological and (possibly) genetic terms. The argument you propose sounds like a self-fulfilling justification for the existence of God. I think it was very clever of Christianity to codify that God gave humans free will - it’s a kind of catch-all caveat, which allows any argument against the religion to be dealt with by offloading responsibility from "God", onto humans. In effect, it’s a complete abstention of moral responsibility by "God" and - by extension - his appointed representatives on Earth. It gives Christian ideology a built-in flexibility that, say, Islam does not have.

I don't think that on an individual level, religion is inherently dangerous. But on a structural level, it is. When religious elites move to protect their vested interests, they cause societal conflict. By rigidly adhering to the more dogmatic interpretations of the ideologies, they play on basic human fears (fears perpetuated by the very ideology they cling to) which in turn, feeds the fires of bigotry and intolerance.

Its pretty obvious from the contributors on this blog, that for many individuals who claim Christianity, the "official line" as trumpeted by the corporate Church is something which is negotiable by the individual, hence people like Joshua and Tom, who obviously have the capacity to see the inherent flaws in the ideology, but choose to keep their version of the Faith. The problem lies with those who cannot/will not deviate from the corporate line. That’s when religion becomes poisonous.

[Simon Icke]

The fool has said in his/ her heart there is no God.

The atheist said to the Christian there is no such thing as absolutes! The Christian replied are you ABSOLUTELY sure?

Why is it that the people who claim not to believe in God are obsessed with spending a life time attacking Him and those that believe in Him?

Why is it that atheistic liberals are so puffed up with their own egos and think their intellect is superior to anyone elses?

Why is it that atheist have no humility?

Why is it that the many words of the academic atheist sound like a clanging symbol? That no one bothers to remember?

Why is it that liberals are only liberal when you agree with them? In realitity they are the most intolerant people on earth?

interesting........

[Simon Icke]

The fool has said in his/ her heart there is no God.

The atheist said to the Christian there is no such thing as absolutes! The Christian replied are you ABSOLUTELY sure?

Why is it that the people who claim not to believe in God are obsessed with spending a life time attacking Him and those that believe in Him?

Why is it that atheistic liberals are so puffed up with their own egos and think their intellect is superior to anyone elses?

Why is it that atheist have no humility?

Why is it that the many words of the academic atheist sound like a clanging symbol? That no one bothers to remember?

Why is it that liberals are only liberal when you agree with them? In realitity they are the most intolerant people on earth?

interesting........

[Joshua]

Tessa, thank you so much for your post.

For me you are the first reasonable thinker that I have read in these blogs who is also an atheist - I am sure that will cause much grinding of teeth but I find the level of rhetoric and misinterpretation from most atheists to be puzzling.

For example, J Pearce's statement "Religion IS based utterly on Fear." Not only, as you say, does this not chime with personal experience but it also links a desire for knowledge with a fear of it which seems self contradictory.

I want to know answers to why we are here, how matter came to be, where morality came from etc etc but in pursuing that quest J Pearce says that as soon as I consider a religious option I am really deep down fearful. No I am not I am curious!

Also J P's comment "Christianity ... assumes that suffering is inevitable" has to be another radical misinterpretation.

Yes, there is suffering in this world but the Christian gospel is the 'good news' and is all about alleviating suffering. It is about the poor, the lost, those in prison, the widow and the orphan. It is a practical message as well as a spiritual one. It is about saving the planet and if we are not doing that then shame on us. That is the gospel and always has been.

Where that message has got lost or corrupted or misinterpreted then it has got lost , corrupted and misinterpreted but that is the heart of it - that Jesus died and rose again to save the world not to enslave it.

Tom, as ever, you say it better than me - and again I echo your post.

[Tessa]

J Pearce, reading your last comment, I can see gaps in your understanding of Christian Theology. There's a lot more to these issues that I have put, but this should give you something to think about:

1. Fundamental to Christianity is the idea that humans are created with free will. If God prevented these conflicting belief systems, then we would not truly be free.

2. How and why are you so certain that religion is based entirely on fear? As an athiest I can't comment first hand, but many friends of mine are religious and there is no fear in their faith.

3. This is the classic problem of evil: how can a God who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent allow suffering? One argument comes back to human freedom: If God intervened everytime we did something wrong, then we are not truly free to make this decision to be evil. If God made it impossible for us to choose evil, again we are not free. Furthermore, God stopping acts of evil would reveal Himself to us giving us no doubt that He exists. According to John Hick and the concept of epistemic distance, this would also remove our free will.

Reading up on John Hick's epistemic distance and Gerry Hughes' resolving of the problem of evil might interest you.

[Tom Jackson]

"I also make a very clear dichotomy between religion and God. I do not believe any God Creator being would have anything to with religion."

I Pearce, there is much in your comment with which I would agree. Twenty odd years ago when I was busy researching all I could about Christianity, reading the Bible thoroughly, visiting various Churches, sitting quietly with a group of elderly Anglicans one minute and throwing my hands to the Heavens the next with a house church of Evangelicals, I very quickly made the distinction between "religion" and faith, a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

The Jesus Christ I believe in would not see one person die of hunger in our world while a Christian had money in his pocket - or invested in a building or the Stock Market! My Christ is not some weak, long-haired anorexic content with shuffling around the country performing the odd miracle or two. He is a giant! A strong, robust, passionate individual who cared about His people and the understanding and relationship they had with this world and their God.

But then, as you quite rightly point out, "religion" can "only ever be utterly flawed (as humans are flawed)".

It is that realisation that puts most things into perspective where faith and belief in Jesus Christ is concerned. We are flawed; we will distort, misuse, mis-interpret, take a self-interest perspective and manipulate an organisation such as the Church; we are human beings, not Gods.

But that doesn't change the message or the reality of Jesus Christ. Because, even as Christians, we fall so far short of what God expects of us doesn't invalidate the teachings and truths of Christianity; it doesn't support the argument that Jesus is not the Son of God. All it does is to confirm what God already knows, what he has already allowed for; we are imperfect as a creation.

I condemn suffering. I don't accept that "the philosophical position that people must suffer to become one with God" is valid. By His suffering, Jesus Christ died so that a reconciliation with God was available and what was asked? That we believe in Him. Not that we cut off an arm or feel the pangs of hunger, the torment of continual pain through illness or the death of a loved one. Painful though that may be, all that God asks is that we believe in Him through His Son.

To be honest with you, I do fear dying and the possibility of nothingness, the end. I am too imperfect myself for a belief in God to completely remove that uncertainty. But that is not why I now have a Christian faith.

My faith evolved as much through the investigative, observant and logical elements of my being as it did through the emotional and spiritual elements. To me there was sufficient "evidence", "proof" or whatever you want to call it that sparked the interest. What followed led to an acceptance and a belief, no Road to Damascus, just a gentle, growing awareness, supported by Christian teaching and writings by Christians, fellowship with other believers and finally a willingness to submit to a truth that - I fully accept - is not an easy one to recognise.

[J Pearce]

Joshua,

Gate-crash as much as you like. No problem. With the greatest of respect, I would answer your post thus:

1. God – if s/he/it exists – would most certainly have nothing to do with the religious belief systems that operate today. Not being a devout follower of Dawkins or Hitchens (although I can fully appreciate their arguments), I don’t see any problem with this point of view. We are infinitesimal nothings in the scale and grandeur of the Universe. For any “God” to create belief systems (note – plural) that are perpetually in conflict AND contradict the natural function of the biosphere is beyond credibility. The best you can hope for is that religion is just one, big, ultra-ironic cosmic joke. That’s about it! It has nothing to do with the Divine. Honest.

2. Religion IS based utterly on Fear. Fear of the unknown! What is religion if it is not a means of providing an explanation of physical experience AND metaphysical experience (i.e. experience beyond our perceptual understanding, e.g. death)? It provides a comfort zone for the human psyche, where the unknowable and unexplainable can be explained (if not understood). This has been the fundamental raison d’etre of religion since the concept of “God” or “Gods” became established in early human cultures. As humans became more populous, so religion has gone beyond its initial function and grown to provide a means of defining cultural value systems (as codified by means of recording, e.g. pictograms, stone tablets, scriptures). And ultimately, it has established itself as a means of accruing power by controlling the population – by exploiting the instinctual human fear of the unknown.

This is basic social anthropology. It beggars belief that educated people today choose to blind themselves to these basic truisms. But, if people can believe in some of the more phantasmagorical tracts of the Bible, then I guess it’s true there’s one born every minute.

3. Why is it accepted that people must suffer? What is it about Christianity that assumes that suffering is inevitable? It seems to me to be the ultimate form of self-flagellation. Or perhaps, it is really the codification of a belief that allows a powerful minority to exercise control over the majority, using violence or repression as the legitimised means – legitimised by both the repressors AND the repressed. Quite a clever trick to pull off, if you think about it.

As I said before, the problem with this mindset is that in the mind of the adherent, it becomes acceptable for others to suffer, because “that’s the way it is”. I suffer for salvation, therefore you must. This is, frankly, sickening. It is the ultimate form of self-denial and abdication of responsibility for one’s fellow humans. It allows for all manner of gross inhumanity. But hey, Christianity does pretty well on that score, right?

I cannot say that atheism or agnosticism works best, as the evidence does not stack up. But in conjunction with our western liberal value system – certain moral tenets derived from Christian teachings, I fully admit – allied with democracy and universal humanism, this seems to be the best system for mass society we’ve had during any period of human history so far. Given that religion has been with us since the dawn of man, the fact that totalitarian religious theocracies are so mind-bendingly evil speaks volumes for the inherent divisiveness that religion inspires. Religious ideology is the perfect encapsulation of humanity’s penchant for tribalism. It mostly reflects all the most dangerous human character traits. Only since Christianity evolved a humanistic strain has it begun to evolve. But it’s still got a long way to go, as evidenced by the medieval throwback opinions one see’s on blogs like this.

[Gareth Rhymes]

I agree with Mr Hichins' ideas about religion, rituals to make you right with God on your own. The Bible and so God would too and He said so when Jesus Christ was on earth (Matthew 15 10-28). However, He did show the only way we can realy be saved; by trusting in Him.
Because of our rebelion against Him, God our just creator Lord will judge us. We face eternity without Him, and so anything good. However, God is not only just, He is also perfectly loving and doesn't want us to suffer this punishment. Therefore, He sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world to fulfile His law and take our just punishment in our place, so we could be made right with God. We must accept this and live our live in obidience to Jesus, following our designer's rules to live best, to gain this gracious gift of salvation.

This requires trust in Jesus not ritual and changed lives of obediance to God's word , by the power of His' Holy Spirit, not to human institutions(Matthew 7 24-27). God bless,

Gareth Rhymes

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

I realise that this might seem a bit irrelevant, but having enjoyed the film 'The Painted Veil' in Haifa recently, I borrowed Somerset Maugham's most famous book, 'Of Human Bondage', which I've never read.

I found from reading this book that practically all the arguments rehearsed above seem to have been there in the 19th century as well.

The point I am making is that virulent atheism is not new. And the 18th C French philosophes especially ridiculed Christianity (and therefore Judaism, which they saw as its precursor, and therefore the villain of the piece) tremendously.

It appears that virulent atheism has become a cult in itself and is not to be compared with agnosticism, which only says 'I'm not sure either way'.

Which is what Maimonides said about God and creation in any case.

If people insist on reading biblical stories as if they were aimed at seven-year-olds, no wonder they grow to mock and sneer.

But biblical stories are very profound and it is time people put away 'childish things' and grew up.

[michael jensen]

[Kevin K. - you seem to have me confused with someone else!]

I think Rowan Williams made a good point when he said something along the lines that if by chance we were to rid the world of religion, we would certainly not simultaneously rid the world of wars and other human atrocities.

[shaz]

i think atheism is turning out its own level of a so called religious structure

[Simon (Adams)]

Following along the lines of common scriptural references to people being quite deliberately unable to preceive God (e.g. Isaiah 6:9-10, I would like to ask if atheists reckon God could have a legitimate reason to hide from them ?

I would suggest the fact of the matter is that that their narrow mindset (all horizontal and no vertical on the larger or "objective" scale) is simply unable to evaluate such a question honestly.

[runs away looking for tin hat...]

[Joshua]

J Pearce.

I hope you don't mind me gatecrashing your post to Tom.

You say you know what religion is and yet what you describe is definitely not it.

So yes I think you, like Hitchens, have constructed something you call religion which sounds pretty awful to us all, no doubt, but actually sounds more like humanity than religion.

You say:

1. "God has nothing to do with religion " - I can even hear Hitchens gasp at that one, and it would definitely worry Dawkins as he is hoping that no one notices his own style of religious fervour.

2. "Religion uses fear" - a bizarre concept. Politicians use fear (Blair and WMD) but religions tend to be about ritual and spirituality not crowd control.

3. "That Christianity, at its heart is "love and peace and long-suffering" is a staggering contradiction on any number of levels." Again you just look like you have not understood something very fundamental.

Humanity is deeply flawed, I am sure we would agree. So how do we deal with that? How do we make a better system, have kinder more loving communities, forgive each other, love our neighbours .

Does atheism or agnosticism work? Seriously. This blog is entitled 'Is all religion poison?' and the answer has to be 'yes' if it is what Hitchens means by religion, but 'no' if it is what most people think of as religion.

At least I think I am 'most people', but then I would say that wouldn't I.

[J Pearce]

Tom,

You mistake me for an atheist. I argue a case similar to atheism but my personal creed is agnostic. I also make a very clear dichotomy between religion and God. I do not believe any God Creator being would have anything to with religion. Religion is an utterly human construct, in philosophy and structure. Hence it can only ever be utterly flawed (as humans are flawed). Religion reflects the nature of the humanity that it sprang from. It does NOT reflect any concept of "divinity". As for JC - I dare say he did exist, but like any other individual who became famous or martyred themselves back in the mists of time, the mythology surrounding that individual has grown far beyond any rational reflection of what that person actually was, or what they actually did.

So I utterly reject the claim that he was the "Son of God". This is not to say that Christianity does not convey certain fundamental moral tenets, by which a society can live in relative peace. The Church also does good. Sometimes. But it has grown to the point where, it seems to me, the teachings of the Church have now taken on a life of their own, such that they are only used to perpetuate the power the Church has over its adherents. The teachings of the Church are frozen in aspic. They belong to another time and place. We - in the West, at least - do not live in that time and place anymore. Which is why we need Hitchens et al to highlight the inherent irrationalism of religion.

You'll notice how atheist-bashers also always wheel out the usual list of suspects - Mao, Stalin, Hitler and all that - as some kind of proof of how a lack of belief in the divine equals concentration camps. What they fail to mention is our own flawed-but-functioning liberal democracy. All of the above mentioned ruled their peoples by using fear and violence as the tool of oppression (so, not so different from religion, then). They did not allow, for example, freedom of association or a free press. We have these things. We also have the freedom to worship who we choose. Our sad, old liberal democracy gives religionists the opportunity to follow their beliefs, free from persecution. Would you get that in a religious theocracy? I really don't think so…

We all live in systems which, to a greater or lesser extent, exert control over us. Our liberal democracy uses capitalism to control us (we must work to earn to gain more control by accumulating wealth). Religion uses fear to exert control. You can see how this fear manifests as denial. The post by Dennis Wheaton is a classic example. He refuses to acknowledge the vast amount of harm his religion has caused countless people throughout the ages. He's washed his hands of the blood spilled in his Church's name. I have noticed this is true of many Christians. I would sympathise with their position, if it were not for the fact that the religious belief system they follow now, is precisely the same belief system which allowed the many religious atrocities to occur in the past.

To say of Christianity that, at its heart is "love and peace and long-suffering" is a staggering contradiction on any number of levels. It also opens the adherent to the philosophical position that people must suffer to become one with God. And look what happens when suffering is condoned…

One of the fundamental positives of a society free of religious control is that suffering is condemned. But under Christianity, it would be tolerated - when those who do suffer are equated as "sinful". It is this indiscrimnate intolerance that is such a danger and, it seems to me, only a mere flick of the ideological switch away. For Christianity, it was the Inquisition, it was Slaves 200 years ago, then it was the Jews, yesterday it was Gays, today its atheists who happen to critique their religion. In Nigeria today, Christian intolerance of gay people (and any innocent non-gay friends of theirs that happen to be nearby) is putting the lives of innocent people at risk. Today. And that’s just Christians. Muslims are even more barbaric!

Joshua - I have known plenty of religious people. They have been perfectly civilised and acceptable. I'm not against religion as an individual choice which that individual pursues in private. But I do object to the corporate power the Church weilds to benefit itself, regardless of the detriment to others. And I have noticed that when the Church does practice intolerance or discrimination to its own benefit (state funded faith schools, the SOR's), there aren't too many of its own who offer any contradictory voices. Not when they stand to benefit from divisiveness and feathering their own nests.

[Joshua]

J Pearce. I fear you are chasing your own tail here.

I too think you basically misunderstand the nature and purpose of religion. You have described a comic book fiction that is risible - I am afraid it makes you look silly.

There are positives to Hitchens arguments but failing so blatantly to understand what he is criticising makes taking him seriously rather difficult.

I think Tom's post puts much the same point (only better!) and I have to agree with Dennis - it does look like you don't know many practicing Christians.

For a really great modern day theologian read N T Wright (if you dare!) http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
His recent book the Challenge of Jesus is brilliant.

Following on from that, Nemo, here was a good supplementary link to the Robert M Price one

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/unmaskingthejesus.htm

Price is a Jesus Seminar theologian so, for all his academic track record, quite hard to take him seriously too.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

I think many people think of religion as faith, which is easy to condemn.

Religion can be much more than faith, and may include the ingredients of common language, peoplehood, dress, food etc.

Militant Islam has given all religion a bad name (yes, I know - some put Christianity in the same bracket, but I don't).

Religion can be a force for good and for bad. For good are the lessons taught about how to forge a stable society and accept plurality, as well as the art, music and literature created by those religious impulses.

The fine line is to incorporate minorities without letting them take over and destroy the society in which they are minorities.

So Dawkins can have his say as long as his opinions, some of them facile, do not become a creed which is implemented in the education system, for instance.

The same holds for Islam as it does for members of the university union who are using McCarthyite tactics to remove rights from Jewish staff and students as I write.

So, in many ways, extreme politics also become a lethal aspect of faith.

[Dennis Wheaton]

"What I know is that religion is based solely on fear and has been - and still is - responsible for much of the inhumanity, death and repression around the world this very day."

Some, but not as much as Secularism, Atheism, Greed, Pride and all the other constituents of a self-centred and self-worshipping way of life which has dominated the 20th century at least.

I am not sure that Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot were driven by any religion, but they were of course all Secularists who had risen above mere superstition.

What *I* know is that none of the Christians I know, including myself, have a religion of fear. What a strange thing to think. I would have to conclude that you don't know many Christians.

Since you are therefore characterising a religion that IS NOT Christianity, it may be that you are correct in some regards, but since you are not describing Christianity, and do not seem to comprehend Christianity at all, I am sure that your post is irrelevant to a what is at its heart a way of love and peace and long-suffering.

You practical ignorance of Christianity seems to be shared by Hitchen et al. And to be honest no-one sounds more pompous than Hitchen.