How do you solve a problem like religious zealotry?

marley says:

07:40am | 15/12/10

I’m not so sure about that.  I believe the Swedish suicide bomber had a British tertiary education.  Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (the fellow that killed Daniel Pearl) attended the London School of Economics.  There are many other examples - obviously, education didn’t cause them to abandon “ignorance and indoctrination.”

The fact is, humans are not always rational.  You can give people a great education, but their reasoning doesn’t necessary follow along logical lines.  They develop beliefs and worldviews that are at odds with what common sense would suggest - why do you think so many educated people oppose vaccination, or believe that 9/11 was an inside job? 

And when it comes to militant Islam, essentially we’re talking about a power struggle between those with a particular world view and what they regard as the corrupt and decadent west.  At heart, their goals are political as much as religious - a furtherance of their control over weaker peoples (ie us), with Islam as the rallying cry.  But it’s imperialism, pure and simple.  And education isn’t going to change the will to power of those with a vision of a world unified under their command.

bec says:

07:57am | 15/12/10

Actually, Islamic suicide bombers who have spent time in the European country they bomb are either students or graduates. They’re very rarely from poor families.

king says:

07:57am | 15/12/10

Simple.

Round up the major religious leaders and put them in the MCG for a year.

Let them do all the praying they can and whoever’s deity shows itself to us all becomes the ruling religion and all other religions are banned.

If no deity shows itself then the atheists win and all religions are banned.

notsurprised says:

08:04am | 15/12/10

Well said Marley, however these issues are deeper and more complicated. There is more to it and also other topics you’ve mentioned.

Tom says:

08:46am | 15/12/10

Al-Abdaly blew himself up with a whole lot of innocent victims. Jones threatened to burn a Koran. Why does Tory lump them in the same category? They are not “equivalent” in any respect.

It’s time post modern “there’s faults on both sides” sloppy journalism gets taken to task. It is nothing more than middle class western cringe.

Steely Dan says:

09:22am | 15/12/10

@ king

You forgot to add some copyright details.  Channel 10’s reality programming execs will have your idea in production by January.  Which works better; ‘Master Deity’ or ‘So You Think You Can Worship’?

stephen says:

09:41am | 15/12/10

‘Clear thinking’ was only ever taught outside the classroom as ‘football’.
The motivation to include it as a syllabus is an attempt to make children passive, so they won’t turn terrorist.
Primitive, in the extreme.

TheRealDave says:

11:06am | 15/12/10

Young educated people are easily susceptible to the influence of older men espousing world changing ideals. Always have been, always will be.

We did it to our own youth at the outbreak of WW1 - see the world, a grand adventure and it’ll be over by Christmas for example. Young people, of all persuasions, and throughout time, think they can change the world with every thing they say and with every action they do. I think education makes them even more susceptible to these ideals despite logic saying it should be contrary.

Maybe more ‘Common Sense’ should be included in education to help offset some of the more extreme extremism. That and stomping down hard on the arseholes recruiting the young and naive.

king says:

12:11pm | 15/12/10

Steely Dan
My first reaction was “So You Think You Can Worship”. But the more I think about “Master Deity” the more it sounds better. Conundrums…....

P. Darvio says:

01:23pm | 15/12/10

The only answer is to get rid of the mental disease called religion and consign it to the history books.

PaulB says:

04:20pm | 15/12/10

Maybe the guy in the Swedish Military who phoned his friend a few hours before the attack, warning him to stay away from the area has more answers to this difficult question.  Its not the existence of religious idiots, its how they allow themselves to be used to advance bigger, uglier agendas.  Narcissism makes people do stupid things.

acotrel says:

09:37am | 15/12/10

‘You can give people a great education, but their reasoning doesn’t necessary follow along logical lines.  They develop beliefs and worldviews that are at odds with what common sense would suggest ‘

Delusion is a sign of mental illness! If you believe blowing yourself up will get you a piece of the action in paradise, you must be nuts!

acotrel says:

09:40am | 15/12/10

‘Al-Abdaly blew himself up with a whole lot of innocent victims. Jones threatened to burn a Koran. Why does Tory lump them in the same category? They are not “equivalent” in any respect. ‘

They’re both idiots?

acotrel says:

09:46am | 15/12/10

Bec, is it remotely possible that only rich people can afford to send their idiot kids to study in Europe?  The correlation would then be that the suicide bombers in Europe are well educated.  The simple fact is that the mullahs pick the most ignoraant people to indoctrinate, and terrorists choose those sorts of people in preference to the educated!  Middle eastern countries are often corrupt from top to bottom, and the power mainstay is religion.

David LD says:

08:28am | 15/12/10

I’d be a little more tolerant and change that to “Ban the teaching of religion to children under the age of 18.”

Once they get to 18, they should be allowed to choose to believe in whatever fairytale they like most, but this institutionalised indoctrination of children into any faith, is simply immoral.

If their faith is the true faith, then it should be no test of will at all to not teach it to children until they are 18. So surely only those with little faith in their god would protest against the banning of teaching religion to children.

Right?

James1 says:

09:11am | 15/12/10

That is the approach we have taken with our daughter, David, and I really do not think it is working.  My wife and I are both atheists, and we are trying to raise our child in such a way that we are not forcing our atheism on her, so as to let her decide for herself what religion (if any) she wants when she gets old enough to make such a decision.  Despite this, our daughter currently thinks there are no gods, and tends to laugh at religious people for believing what they do after hearing the stories.  She found the story of Noah particularly entertaining - “how did he get to Australia and get kangaroos if they didn’t even know about Australia Daddy?”

Dave-o says:

10:56am | 15/12/10

@ SaZz

Well said comrade

AdamC says:

01:33pm | 15/12/10

It is interesting how much ordinary people are attracted to totalitarian ideologies. Atheism is coming along quite nicely in that respect.

James1, how did you respond to your daughter’s question?

Tombowler says:

01:57pm | 15/12/10

Thats marvelous James1!

You’ve raised a little bigot who laughs at people for their religion and points out absurdities in their deepest beliefs!

I intend that my own spawn will one day taunt fat people in the street and go into the homes of the lower-middle class and point out things that are cheap and tacky.

Perhaps I will encourage a sense of humility, tolerance and respect in my children instead. I don’t know. The fat/poor-people-judging could probably be fun too….

James1 says:

02:27pm | 15/12/10

I told her the truth AdamC.  I told her I don’t know.  I figured that was the only way to answer without pressing my own opinion on her.

James1 says:

03:03pm | 15/12/10

Does insulting 7 year old girls make you feel big, Tombowler? 

In any case I don’t think your kids will have much humility.  I dare say your children will turn out like you - arrogant, rude bullies with bad grammar.

Dazeddazza says:

03:29pm | 15/12/10

Well done James, you are raising a child that can think independently and question stupidity.  Maybe put a few noses out of joint along the way but all the same a good approach.  Don’t worry about the knockers, the ignorant will always be there!!

Tombowler says:

03:31pm | 15/12/10

Ah yes.

Questioning the parenting technique of someone who considers it ‘enlightened’ to extol the virtues of encouraging ones children to laugh at those of different beliefs shows no arrogance or bullying tendencies at all.

Consider this:

If a Christian family told cute stories about their fundamentalist kid laughing at Muslims for their faith and asking ‘Don’t they see the moral juxtaposition in celebrating Mohammads’ flight from religious persecution and the prophets own goals of establishing celiphate states?”

Would it still be cute? I doubt it.

It quite pathetic to hide behind your daughter and try to argue that my attack; (clearly on your own tolerance/encouragement of persecution) was directed at a seven-year old (who cannot reasonably be expected to understand any wrong in mild religious persecution when her role model seems to actively condone it).

I do apologise for grammatical error. That gives me the sh@ts too.

Chris L says:

03:44pm | 15/12/10

@AdamC, Ok, I’ll bite. What correspondence does your unique insight see between totalitarianism and not following a religion?

AdamC says:

07:22pm | 15/12/10

Chris L:

SaZz says:07:03am | 15/12/10

Easy - ban religion

I would have thought it was self-explanatory. Your friend Hoxha in Albania was the first to declare his communist fiefdom officially atheist. The Chinese communists go almost as far. I’m not sure what your mate Trotsky thought about the issue.

Chris L says:

12:44pm | 16/12/10

Fair enough AdamC. You’re pointing out that some totalitarian states favour atheism over a specific state religion.

Your original post seemed to suggest that atheism was directly involved in totalitarianism, which is something of a long shot since such governments historically have also been known to endorse religion. I would point out (again) that atheism has no dogma nor agenda and thus has no method for encouraging any one kind of political ideology.

As forSaZz’s post about banning religion, I don’t agree with this. Neither do I agree with the many and varied bans that religions seek to impose upon the populace.

Greg Kasarik says:

12:50am | 17/12/10

Chris L.

I heartily disagree that “atheism has no dogma nor agenda and thus has no method for encouraging any one kind of political ideology”.

Its dogma is that there is no Divine and the agenda of many of its adherents is that religion and the belief in god should be crushed out of existence. Just look at all the fools who say “Easy - ban religion”.

As a mystic, I regularly cop it from both sides. One insists that I’m going to hell; the other mocks my beliefs and experiences as stupid and delusional. Both arrogantly believe that I should set aside my subjective experience in favour of their subective experience.

And despite the elitist imaginings of rationalism inherent in the atheist mindset, many are just as fanatical, obnoxious and intelectually lazy as any thesist that you are likely to encounter. Don’t for a second think that some demagogue couldn’t find sheep who would gladly commit attrocities in pursuit of their glorious religion free Utopia.

Steely Dan says:

11:22am | 17/12/10

@ Greg

“Its dogma is that there is no Divine”
Wrong.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god, not a belief that there is no god.  You can still believe the latter and be classified as an atheist, but a group that is defined simply by what they don’t believe cannot be dogmatic.  Atheists (like everyone else) can be dogmatic, but atheism (which is not a philosophy but a single position on a truth claim) isn’t.

“...the agenda of many of its adherents is that religion and the belief in god should be crushed out of existence.”
Some atheists like religion.  I know of many who think that religion is necessary to keep society in line (personally, I think that sounds like a load of condescending crap).  And most atheists I’ve encountered are committed to the separation of church and state - which means that they oppose any action by government to oppress the religious or the non-religious.  I’m an atheist that does want to see religion disappear - but that has to come from religious people leaving the religions themselves.  I’d never support banning religion (as if that would actually work anyway).

” Just look at all the fools who say “Easy - ban religion”.”
And all the atheists who say that banning religion is oppressive.

“Both arrogantly believe that I should set aside my subjective experience in favour of their subective experience.”
I wouldn’t argue that at all.  I’d argue that our subjective experiences need to be measured by our objective scientific understanding of the world - one that doesn’t suggest a god or gods exists, and one that tells us that our subjective experiences are unreliable.

“And despite the elitist imaginings of rationalism inherent in the atheist mindset, many are just as fanatical, obnoxious and intelectually lazy as any thesist that you are likely to encounter.”
Nobody said that atheists couldn’t be stupid, or lazy, or evil.  In my opinion atheism is a rational position to take on the topic of god/s’ existence, but that doesn’t mean you have to be rational to hold it.  Not believing in a god doesn’t come with magical intellectual enlightenment.  Just like not believing in a flat earth doesn’t make you a genius.

“Don’t for a second think that some demagogue couldn’t find sheep who would gladly commit attrocities in pursuit of their glorious religion free Utopia.”
I don’t.  But that’s not an argument for religion.

Ask a stupid question says:

09:48am | 15/12/10

Not to mention online comment forums. And who would have ever guessed that “Joan” was a socialist ?

acotrel says:

04:21pm | 15/12/10

She found the story of Noah particularly entertaining - “how did he get to Australia and get kangaroos if they didn’t even know about Australia Daddy?” ‘

Perhaps they hopped on an aeroplane?’

John Smythe says:

09:00am | 15/12/10

Very well said Ironside!

michael j says:

10:36am | 15/12/10

I’m sorry but burning a book is not inciting violence, it is burning a book, it is petty and stupid
Have you ever seen any film clips from Germany around
the 1930 s ,some people take their book burning very very
seriosly and as you know put a bunch of fanatics in the same room they will come up with bad ideas and it does not matter
what colour,creed,race,reglion,there is allways one in the works,,that they operate under freedoms that we all have
in socity is good,at least we can see what is going on,,

Jon says:

10:50am | 15/12/10

Ironside @ I agree, we are destroying the Philosophical capital inherited to us by the Western enlightenment without knowing it, because the West does not know how to deal moderate Islam let alone the extremist version of it. That’s not say there are not secular Muslims, there are but not enough to make a different. The construction of Islam makes it difficult as it has always asserted that it was the State. Where as Christianity acepted “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s,” which has made it more accepting of secular rule. The inability to resolve this difference has manifested in the West as cowardice masquerading as tolerance and cultural relativism. This leads us to the paradox of tolerance, as Karl Popper put it. He was an advocate of toleration, however he realized that even a tolerant person couldn’t always accept another’s intolerance. “For, if tolerance allowed intolerance to succeed completely, tolerance itself would be threatened.” This paradox has been used well by religious apologists and the Islamist’s, as they know it’s an open societies Achilles heel and helps progress their agendas.

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams

dancan says:

11:51am | 15/12/10

Imagine a bull fight.  Inside the ring you have an angry bull running around, when a matador holds a cape in front of the bull antagonising it into charging do you blame the bull?

Any sane person wouldn’t get so offended by burning a book as to threaten violence against the antagonist or others.  But these extremists aren’t sane in the first place so when you knowingly perform an act which will incite them to act in a violent manner then you are no better.  Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Markus says:

04:01pm | 15/12/10

dancan, but then the bull does not demand that it be treated like a member of civilised human society despite its actions, or cry racism (speciesism?) when civilised society looks down on its actions as backward.

jade says:

12:23am | 16/12/10

Burning a book may not be inciting violence, certainly. But the murderer of Doctor George Tiller was a religious extremist who took the man’s name from a hitlist created by a Christian website. Christian pundits declared the man who killed him a hero for his heinous crime.

The Oklahoma City Bomber was a Christian religious extremist. The IRA are Christian terrorists who have recently been responsible again for the murder of British police officers. The wars in the Balkans were about genocidal Christians persecuting Muslims and other Christians.

I tend to think it likely that Tory was more concerned about offending the Christians and therefore didn’t mention these very recent examples of Christian terrorism. Any of the above puts Christianity as a faith squarely in the company of extremist Islam.

Levi says:

08:50am | 16/12/10

Jade, you have taken the worst examples of christianity which are few and far between. Islam perpetrates violence on a daily basis and in far greater volumes than Christianity could hope to achieve. Christians are killed on a daily basis by hateful muslims in Egypt, Iraq, Africa and others. The difference between us and them is that we emerged from the caves a long time ago. Unfortunately for Islam their ideas, morals and outlook on life belong more to caves than the civilised world.

Before you call me a right wing Christian, I am not. I follow no religion. But I can guarantee you that Christianity has brought far more benefits than evils to the world. Islam is an aberration that is the absolute antithesis to human progress.

Aussie-Turko says:

03:36pm | 31/01/11

@Levi - You say you are not Christian yet, while defending Christianity and opposing Islam you had said “the difference between us and them”.

I’m sure you are not a right wing Christian at all…

dtcMCMLXXII says:

12:52pm | 15/12/10

When did Church and State become joined? News to me…

Greg Kasarik says:

01:14am | 17/12/10

I’m all in favour of removing tax breaks for religious institutions. They shouldn’t get rewarded for there mere existence.

If they do charity work, then by all means give tax breaks to the charitable institutions, but not the religious organisation itself.

Steely Dan says:

11:24am | 17/12/10

@ Greg

Seconded.

Ironside says:

08:03am | 15/12/10

Pfft, now I know your a troll TChong, there is no way for Australia to win the Ashes At this stage it would be proof of Gods existance if Ricky Ponting just made some runs.

TChong says:

10:35am | 15/12/10

Ironsides , I know I’ll be invoking the name of Mr Jeezus H. Krist Almitey, alrighty, every time we are unfairly no balled, or the Poms get away with obvious (to everyone, except the umpires),  LBWs

Danny B says:

01:26pm | 15/12/10

“If they want to get involved in government, let them pay the admission fee like everyone else” - George Carlin

Keg says:

03:00am | 16/12/10

The ACL are funded mostly by people like me with money that I’ve already paid tax on. Why should they be taxed again on that money?

Steely Dan says:

09:53am | 15/12/10

@ Lee from WA

“the US, along with Australia, doesn’t make religion a test on any office (the fundamental criteria historically associated with separation of church and state).”
There’s more to it than that.  Check out S116, based on the text of the US Establishment Clause.

“The one that states that unless you tow the line on… relativism (that everyone is right)”
Bit early in the day for straw men, isn’t it?

Chris L says:

03:56pm | 15/12/10

I guess Lee didn’t realise that religious people can be secularists as well, some examples being many of the founding fathers of the US. Maybe Lee just doesn’t understand the definition os “secularism”. I have to agree with posters above that education will surely help against extremism.

Kika says:

01:27pm | 20/12/10

Frankly, Lee, YES! Christians should be put back into their box. 9% of the population doe snot have the right to speak for rest of us all. Yes you can have an opinion, but that does not mean we all have to listen and obey to your opinions.

The issue is that Christians sit there and want to dictate terms on how we all should live. You tell us that you are right and are living the only decent honourable way to live and everybody has to live the same way you do.

If you don’t want gay marriage, don’t marry another man (or woman). If you think those who do are doomed straight to tell, let them. Why do you care whether they do or don’t? Shouldn’t you only be worried about your own life and salvation?

If Christians are allowed to go out in public and say things stemming from their beliefs, I would like to hear more from other religious people too. I’d like to hear Hindu’s preaching to me about the benefits of dharma, Muslims about fasting and Zen Buddhists going at us about all our clutter everywhere.

Live and let live? Issue is Christians cannot allow us to do just that. I would love for people to live and let live but you guys want to push for laws preventing just that.

Steely Dan says:

09:18am | 15/12/10

@ jim morris

It shouldn’t be recognised as a mental illness - because it’s not.  But there’s nothing wrong with pointing out irrationality when we see it.

phil says:

09:37am | 15/12/10

Trolling along nicely there Jim, I dont see how your comments provide any actual helpful insight to the article. Maybe you didnt read it?

Apart from not being realistic or achievable they are very narrow in view while being quite oppressive forcing people to not be allowed any religion as you consider it mental illness is offensive on many levels.

You cant even be grown up enough to let people do as they wish and believe what they will! There is no tolerance in what you have posted. 
People need more tolerance within reason.

If you are so anti-religion i hope you are also holding the same line about banning to such people like Oprah who some people substitute as a religion as they follow everything she has to say on how they should live their lives. Much like many say religious people do.

michael j says:

01:56pm | 15/12/10

A jim lay off the mental illness trip religous belief has nothing
at all to do with it ,not in the mainstream anyway,
When i served some time in the army i went to a lecture by an army chaplin(compulsey) with 40 new recurits in the room
question time was all over the place untill someone ask
had he ever been in combat,Yes he replied 3 tours of
veitnam,questioned further yes ,he had been in situations
when a firefight was on and he had comforted men that died
in his arms,as you can imagine that put a damper on ques time and most of us sat their with a blank look on our face
time and place for everthing,and they say a combat zone is no place for atheist,,lucky for me i never had to find out,,
as a point of intrest ( SKYPILOT ) really is their radio call sign

marley says:

09:27am | 15/12/10

You are looking at the issue purely from a narrow, western perspective.  But we live in a global world, with people and ideas moving relentlessly across borders. If you think religion is becoming socially unacceptable, I suggest you visit India or any one of the Muslim countries, where religion permeates the very fabric of society.  In these places, religion is inseparable from culture. 

Would you advocate applying the same rules there as here?  Or would you merely impose the rules on those who emigrate from those countries to Australia?  For that matter, should aboriginal children be denied knowledge of their creation and dreamtime myths until they reach adulthood?

Kate says:

09:50am | 15/12/10

@marley - Yes, I was looking purely from an Australian perspective (as was Tory’s article) - smoking isn’t exactly socially unacceptable in India either.  Obviously it is culturally complex, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start somewhere.

We don’t allow FGM, widow-burning or polygamy in Australia on the basis that it is acceptable in India or Africa - why should our approach to organised religion be any different? 

And I was referring (again in the Australian context) to organised religion - the kind that seeks to impose its ‘morality’ on secular society, the kind that prioritises ‘faith’ over knowledge, the kind that terrifies children - in the absence of any evidence - with claims that a veneful god will send them to hell, the kind that has produced abusive orphanages and pedophile priests, the kind that is filthy rich and enjoys tax-free status, the kind that preaches hatred and intolerance. 

Aboriginal dreamtime mythology doesn’t fall into any of these categories.

Steely Dan says:

09:57am | 15/12/10

@ Kate

Yes, religion should be taxed.  But if you believe in the separation of church and state, any ‘education campaigns’ against religion of any kind cannot be publicly funded.

marley says:

01:04pm | 15/12/10

@Kate - well, it seems to me either you ban all religions or none.  You want to make an exception for aboriginal dreamtime on the grounds that it isn’t harmful - but surely it inculcates an erroneous understanding of the universe?  It’s an appeal to unreason just as much as the Koran or Bible or the Ramayana.

As for preaching hatred and intolerance, frightening children and amassing filthy lucre, have you ever met a Jain or a Quaker? 

By all means, use logic and science to debunk religion.  Pursue the crimes done in the name or under the cover of religion.  Make sure that children have access to alternative views of the world.  Remove the tax free status.

But religion isn’t like smoking - kids who start smoking young have great difficulty breaking their addiction, whereas the increasing secularization of our society is proof positive that religion has much less of a hold.

Jon says:

03:29pm | 15/12/10

marley@ not so!  When I visited India, the government was very busy trying to get rid of some of its own cultural and religious practices such as honor killings and the caste system. The problem is you seem to think that Universal Human Rights is some sought from cultural imperialism, because it comes from the West.

“Human rights are more divine than scriptures and are not negotiable even in the name of God. Human rights are not to pass the test of scriptures; it is scriptures that have to pass the litmus test of human rights.”

Chris L says:

04:07pm | 15/12/10

Young people can be taught Greek mythology or Pagan beliefs as a matter of history and psychology without being indoctrinated. I don’t know for sure, but perhaps such an academic approach to aboriginal dreamime legends would allow youth to explore their culture without being harmed.

Indeed if the Abrahamic religions were similarly discussed dispassionately the young may grow a healthy respect for the roles (good and bad) that they played in the growing of our society.

After all, there was a time when to speak out against the Egyptian gods would mean death (stupid extremists!) and now christians and muslims are just as happy as atheists to chuckle at their silly ideas.

fairsfair says:

09:37am | 15/12/10

Jim you are about to be termed racist for saying the above, which I think wrong. I agree with you on the most part and fail o see how my agreeance is racist but I shall look forward to the comments that this brings out. I am sure that the majority of people who follow Islam are peaceful and interpret the writings to be that of peace. As with Christians and the Bible. This wowser with his burning of Koran’s is just as bad. This is just like schoolyard bullying. The christians have taunted, decried and ridiculed for ages and some extreme muslims responded with violence. The fat kid through the first punch after being teased since preschool. We are one messed up world. The problem is our inherent need to label and stereotype which you have done in your final paragraph (that is not a criticism). We view it as the east (muslims) v. the west (christians). A challenge of our ideals. I personal threat. We try to look at things to be black and white when there is so much grey. Political correctness perpetuated by the mainstream media is stirrring that black,white and grey into a festering pot of sh*t. There is now more grey than ever before. Lets all just sit tight and wait for that pot to boil over.

papachango says:

02:34pm | 15/12/10

I agree but I don’t condone the actions of the Cronulla rioters. Essentially it WAS a tribal race riot - ‘Lebbos’ versus ‘Skips’.

The problem is that the left wing media only identify one side as the racists, whereas there were thugs on both sides.

In any case, if we took a more individualist view rather than being part of a gang such things would be far less common. This is the essence of small ‘l’ liberalism; far from being a selfish ideology it stops a lot of this tribal crap like identity politics and gang violence.

Having to tolertate nutcases like the Rev Terry Jones is a small price to pay for this.

Chris L says:

04:23pm | 15/12/10

A billboard in America which said “you can be good without god” was decried as an attack on religion. Atheists wanting their views displayed alongside the religious messages publicly shown at government buildings were condemned as attacking christianity.

There are some secularist/atheists that show intolerance, True Believer, and I tend to cringe when I see it, but it is nowhere near as pevalent as you say it is. On many (not all) posts where you have complained about athest bigotry I have scanned the comments for these attacks and found your claims unjustified. I think you are being oversensitive, but that’s just my opinion.

At least atheists don’t blow up abortion clinics or crowded places and we don’t fly planes into buildings. In fact in all of history no-one has ever been killed in the name of atheism. Not even budhism can make that claim!

Tedd says:

11:10am | 15/12/10

He did.  But, he was virtually an isolated case.

Steely Dan says:

11:15am | 15/12/10

It was major news, Henrietta.  Hence why it was in the SMH and discussed on The Punch.  It didn’t get as much publicity as Jones for the same reason that mini-skirts don’t make the front pages any more - they’re not as shocking as they were fifty years ago.

One important difference between Jones and the Brisbane lawyer who burned the Koran (and the Bible) - Jones was threatening to burn Korans if the Islamic Community Centre in NY went ahead.  He was opposing the building because he was discriminating against the religion of the inhabitants, and attempting to use the mass burning as a bargaining chip. 
The lawyer burned and smoked the Koran and the Bible in reaction to everyone losing their sh%$ about book-burning.  His point was that book-burning is only oppressive if you’re seeking to remove the textual information inside them from society - and that they’re just books.  Non-magical, tree-pulp-based, mass-produced books.

notsurprised says:

11:27am | 15/12/10

Well Henrietta, I do agree with you but the pastor was in the US and the lawyer was in Australia. Australians and Americans have different styles of dealing with and expressing publicity. From what I remember the lawyer did receive a lot of negative publicity and even lost his job at a university in Queensland. Fundamentalist atheists are just as abhorrent as fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians.

Henrietta says:

11:37am | 15/12/10

It attracted no where near the publicity as the Jone’s case. Of course the circumstances were different, but they both involved the burning of Koran which was the action the whole world was trying to prevent.

Steely Dan says:

01:18pm | 15/12/10

@ Henrietta

“It attracted no where near the publicity as the Jone’s case.”
1. Jones did it first.
2. Jones did it in the country with the largest media presence in the world, which also happens to have the largest foreign military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. Jones did it in direct retaliation to a planned Islamic community centre.
Where’s the atheist media conspiracy there?

Tedd says:

01:34pm | 15/12/10

He didn’t lose his job - he just got sent on a weeks leave.

The points of his exercise was

* to have a dig at Terry Jones by burning the Bible,
* to actually do the act rather than talk about it,
* to do it non-discriminately by burning religious texts equally, and
* to convey it did not affect the messages in the texts.

Chris L says:

04:26pm | 15/12/10

I had no idea his noodliness had a concubine! I bet you’re tastey!

papachango says:

03:29pm | 15/12/10

I think you’re right - Palestinians are being used as pawns by the extremist elements of the Arab world. That’s the saddest thing about this whole Israel / Palestine thing.

Imagine if all the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West bank put down their weapons, acknowledged Israel’s right to exist and focussed on building their own community instead of firing rockets across the border.

Would Israel maintain it’s blockade and annex their lands? There might be some border disputes and ultra-orthodox Jewish settlers causing trouble, but overall Israel would have to come to the party. East Jerusalem would still be an issue (and I think if the Palestinians can ever renounce violence and get their act together they deserve a piece of that), but plenty of largely friendly nations have their ongoing disputes without trying to blow each other up.

It would also take away any excuse the Islamist extremists have to hate Israel. They would just have to hate them for being Jewish, which would take away a lot of symathy for their cause

Steely Dan says:

01:10pm | 15/12/10

@ Barry

Richard Dawkins is religious, and at odds with biologists?  Bit confused are we Barry?

astrid says:

02:12pm | 15/12/10

atheism is just another form of religion.

Its a belief system as well.

TheRealDave says:

02:42pm | 15/12/10

I think he was trying to make an ironic point….wasn’t he?

Zac says:

02:48pm | 15/12/10

@ Steely Dan,

Buddhists are Atheists but religious, what do you think of that?. Even Dawkins claims to be a cultural Christian. Surprise, surprise Atheism has values/beliefs, check out the following link for more.

Atheist beliefs/values…..

Excerpt

Let me list here the experience of a person who attended the 33rd annual ATHEIST CONVENTION in Seattle, Washington, in April of 2007. He had a very interesting experience and he learned things he did not expect.

While sitting in the crowd, listening to speakers, and watching the atheists’ reactions, it dawned on him how utterly religious they seemed to him. He is not trying to say they believed in a God but they acted as though it were

http://atheisticviolence.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/atheist-beliefs/

Steely Dan says:

03:36pm | 15/12/10

@ Zac

“Buddhists are Atheists but religious, what do you think of that?”
I think you should realise that Buddhism can be both a philosophy and a religion.  Buddhism is a very broad term encompassing very different world-views.

“Even Dawkins claims to be a cultural Christian.”
That doesn’t make him a Christian.  Or religious of any stripe.  Do you know what a cultural Christian is?  It’s somebody who is part of a culture significantly shaped by Christian traditions.  This can include Christians (obviously) and non-Christians.

“Surprise, surprise Atheism has values/beliefs check out the following link for more.”
And that unbiased, scholarly website is supposed to be evidence for your position?  Really?
Atheists can hold those beliefs - in fact atheists can hold any beliefs they want (except belief in god/s, obviously) and still be classified as atheists.

Syl says:

04:12pm | 15/12/10

Astrid
No it isnt.

atheism [?e?????z?m]
n (Philosophy) rejection of belief in God or gods
[from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a-1 + theos god]

Rejection of belief is not a belief system.  It is, by definition, the opposite.

Chris L says:

04:33pm | 15/12/10

Zac we have covered the definition of “atheist” before. You are talking about a group of like minded atheists. The truth is (pay attention) there is no dogma, no organisation and no belief system to atheism. The only common factor is that we don’t follow a theism (kinda obvious when you look at the name).

I guess it is difficult for those with religion to conceive of being without it. When I say to people that I’m not a christian they usually follow by asking what religion I do follow. The assumption being that you have to endorse some unprovable, supernatural belief system. Some people seem to think it would be better to be a scientologist or morman than an atheist.

I can only say that not endorsing any religion gives me great peace and contentment and I have never felt the need to lobby for laws or bans in order to make others think like me

michael j says:

01:04am | 16/12/10

Why does everyone always leave Lucifer out
of religon’s disscusion he/she/it plays one of the
biggest parts in the two major religion’s,,
although it is not taught in mainstream meetings
the essance of lucifer is where conscience,n,morals
come from,, and i’ll leave alone for the time being,,
point of note though lucifer is not equated with evil
in any major teaching,,,f,it beleive what you will
belief is hoping,knowing is beleiving,,
to each their own the more the merrier,,,,,

Dazeddazza says:

02:42pm | 16/12/10

You sure Barry??

Steely Dan says:

02:43pm | 15/12/10

@ AdamC

“Sorry, point of order, what is it with left-wing westerners and moral relativism? Tory, are you actually likening a terrorist murderer with a misguided but harmless American pastor?”
1. Where’s the moral relativism?
2. Yes, she is.  But she didn’t say their fundamentalism was equivalent.

But I agree with you on the book-burning - unless the objective is to burn somebody else’s property or to eliminate the idea, burning books is just burning books.

Francis says:

02:42pm | 15/12/10

actually there is quite alot of mass murderes that are atheists. In fact doing the maths more people have died under an atheist ruler than ever under a christian, catholic or islamic rule in the modern age.

HIlter, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong il, Mussolini,  Mugagbe,  etc. But it does mean that just because atheism is responsible for more grief in the world that we should ban it.

Syl says:

03:05pm | 15/12/10

Francis

Moving on from the fact that several of the tyrants you listed are not Athiest (read previous posts i cant be bothered positng the rebuttal to this tired argument that has been posted time and time again) there is a vast difference between being killed by an Athiest and being killed in the name of Athiesm.  It really isnt that hard to distinguish.

Zac.

Pekka called himself many things, and described himself in contradictory terms, he was a nutter who believed in killing anyone he thought unfit or lacking strength, he NEVER claimed to kill in the name of Atheism.

Sam Harris
a) does not define himself as Athiest
b) does not condone killing in the name of Atheism
c) Says it MAY be ethical kill people who believe in dangerous propositions, not it IS.  There is a difference, he NEVER said “I think we should kill all Muslims”
d) has never killed or by inaction allowed someone to be killed for his beliefs (or lack of)

Strawman arguments do not hold up, try again

Steely Dan says:

03:15pm | 15/12/10

@ Zac

“How do you solve a problem like Atheistic zealotry?”
Atheistic zealotry is like passionate non-stamp collecting. What you mean is anti-religious zealotry. There is nothing in the lack of a belief in god alone that can lead to bad - or good for that matter. 

In the case of that Finnish idiot you’d have to belive 1) that you are “god-like”, 2) that biology is prescriptive, 3) that biology needed your help, and 4) that cynical existentialism, social Darwinism and anti-human humanism (that’s a contradiction, if you didn’t pick up on that) are all valid concepts in order to be likely to commit his atrocities.  These are not default atheist beliefs.

“Atheist and scientist Sam Harris calls for the mass murder of Muslims”
Not that I accept Harris’ argument, but I’d encourage you to look at the context of that quote.

Steely Dan says:

03:42pm | 15/12/10

@ Syl

“he NEVER claimed to kill in the name of Atheism.’
Even if he did it wouldn’t mean anything.  Just as it wouldn’t mean anything if he claimed to be killing in the name of white males (I’m assuming he’s white).  There is nothing in being white, male or atheist that necessarily leads to murder.

Jonno M says:

04:11pm | 15/12/10

Francis,

You are wrong about Magabe, he is a catholic.

But the others are all atheists but you missed off most of the leaders of african nations most of them are atheists as well.

they all have a non belief and have performed this violence in the belief of themselves and thier own might and probably think that they themselves as gods.

Atheism is just the denial of a greater being than one own self.

Chris L says:

04:44pm | 15/12/10

(sigh) OK Syl, I’ll give it another try, but I want you to take on the next one.

Hitler (Godwin forgive me) was raised a catholic, maintained a concordance with the vatican, invoked Jesus in every public speech and never said anything about being an atheist. (Boorman was an atheist but nobody ever seems to bring him up.)

Stalin attended a seminary with the intent of becoming a priest and reinstituted the church during WWII. Eventually he replaced worship of a god with worship of himself, which is very much not atheistic.

Kim Jong Il similarly uses state worship of himself to control the population. Not an atheist!

I don’t know enough about the others to comment, and I suspect neither do you Francis (given your absolute fail with the ones I could provide facts for).

Mouse says:

09:06pm | 15/12/10

OK Chris L, just to finish it off for you : Pol Pot was christian, that is why the Americans supported him at the time. The fact that he was a twisted, genocidal maniac was irrelevant, he was a christian and those damn North Koreans & Vietnamese weren’t!  Mussolini was Roman Catholic, like most good Italian boys.  From all the data I can find, it seems that political leaders, presidents, etc, that have been part of “mass murders” that Francis is referring to, have had some sort of religious beliefs.  Atheism is the belief in no god, you cannot ban someone from not believing in something, be it a religious god or Darwinism.  And, as far as I understand it, catholics are christian too!

Barry says:

01:57pm | 16/12/10

what a shame that people have never read history.

Hilter for example was quoted as saying

We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany

the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement

also commented that religion was for the slaves and that religion was for the confused.

In saying this Hitler started with religous dogma but toward the end swayed away from the dogma and pick up the atheist themes.

You will find that most leaders grab religion as a start and often abandon it once it has served them.

So please becareful when you blog and check your history first. Just because Hilter may have taken a religious or atheistic dont feel you are wrong because people like Hilter was a particular belief. It appears that people a horrified to think that they think or have the same belief or non belief as a person like Hilter and defend thier idelology by blogging factoids.

Steely Dan says:

03:16pm | 16/12/10

@ Barry

“Hilter for example was quoted as saying… We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany”
Yet before and after Hitler spoke of his belief in the Christian god, both publicly and privately.  Hitler wasn’t a fan of religions as he saw them as threatening to his control.  Perhaps what he was referring to is promoting reverence of the Nazi Aryan state - he saw Aryans as being God’s chosen people.  He wasn’t an orthodox Christian, but he certainly believed in the Christian god.

“the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement”
The destruction of the Christian religions was one of their purposes, but not destruction of belief in the Christian deity.  Hitler pushed the idea of a ‘Positive Christianity’ - which was supposed to oust Catholicism’s control and unite Protestants into a religion tied to the German state.  It was predictably anti-Jewish and pro-Arian, so much of the Biblical canon was disregarded as heretical.

“In saying this Hitler started with religous dogma but toward the end swayed away from the dogma and pick up the atheist themes.”
What atheist themes?  Hitler was vocally anti-atheist as he saw godlessness as anti-German.

“Just because Hilter may have taken a religious or atheistic dont feel you are wrong because people like Hilter was a particular belief.”
Don’t worry, I don’t.  But I’m not going to let people spout ‘every famous tyrant was an atheist’ in order to make some argument that you can’t be moral if you don’t believe in a god - or that godliness makes people immune to atrocity.  It’s a stupid argument, and reminding people that Hitler was a Christian (non-denominational, and with pagan influences) usually quietens them down.

Barry says:

04:25pm | 16/12/10

@ Steely Dan

You pretty much prove my point…....

its ok dude, history is what it is we cant change it but I spose we can yell loud enough an make people think another way. hey.

If it helps I dont think you a mass murdering atheist like Hilter.

Steely Dan says:

09:57am | 17/12/10

@ Barry

“its ok dude, history is what it is we cant change it but I spose we can yell loud enough an make people think another way. hey.”
Look, you’re free to try.  I can’t stop you.  As long as you don’t scream too close to my ear, I wouldn’t dream of denying you your freedom of speech.

“If it helps I dont think you a mass murdering atheist like Hilter.”
If it helps, I don’t think mass murdering Hitler was an atheist anyway.  But if you don’t want to rebut my points you don’t have to.  I just have a thing for facts.

Trev10 says:

04:55pm | 17/12/10

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but if someone like Mr Auvinen carried out these crimes while claiming to be a Christian, obviously this claim could be refuted after just a quick glance at the scriptures.  If, on the other hand, he claimed to be athiest, who could argue with him?

Steely Dan says:

11:48pm | 18/12/10

@ Trev

“if someone like Mr Auvinen carried out these crimes while claiming to be a Christian, obviously this claim could be refuted after just a quick glance at the scriptures.”
No, it can’t.  A Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ was the son of God, whether they committed sins or not.  In fact, most Christians believe all people are inherently sinful, which is why they need to worship Jesus.

“If, on the other hand, he claimed to be athiest, who could argue with him?”
Was anybody disputing it?

Nickosjt says:

05:46pm | 15/12/10

I agree to a point, Carly. But did you see Christians riot, burn down embassies, and murder people when ‘piss Christ’ came to town? It was extremely offensive to them. This is the price of freedom of speech and actions. The pastor has a right to burn the Koran; this does not excuse or justify Islamic violence. Muslims need to learn that in a pluralistic liberal democratic society you have to live with differences- even when you are offended. Being offended is never justification for violence and murder.

And on separation of church and state- some get confused on what this is. It essentially the principle that no government will endorse or support a particular denomination, not will attainment to government offices require religious tests (i.e., “are you a Catholic?”). Separation of church and state does not, and has never, meant that people of religious faith should shut their traps and stay out of politics. This would be a denial of their basic human rights of freely participating in a democratic society. So let’s be clear on the terms- sure, we do not want the government endorsing religion and enforcing its citizens to comply with its doctrines. But people of religious faith are free to express opinions and run for any office in the land. That’s democracy!

Kika says:

02:01pm | 23/12/10

Religion will eat itself - you are right. Science should be the new religion.