An Open Letter To Bill Maher

Let me say first that I am a big fan of yours. The way that you point out the faults of both the republicans and the democrats is absolutely brilliant. I believe your talent along with the likes of Jon Stewart as well as Steve Colbert is very much needed especially among young people. Not to say that adults don't benefit from your show as well, but it's the young people, who otherwise would not pay attention to the news who benefit the most. It's the young people who become educated and aware of current events and issues, and are introduced to the minds of your guests whether they are entertainers, political analysts, or authors.

Now, some may feel that the fact that young people aren't watching CNN or God forbid Fox News, to become educated on current events is a bad thing. That of course is debatable. However, one cannot deny that everyone young and old whether they should be watching the regular news or reading the paper or not, greatly benefit from your combination of politics and humor.

That being said, after watching your movie Religulous, (I know it has been out for awhile now, but I just saw it) I was quite disappointed with your depiction of religion as a whole. Of course you are free to believe whatever you want to believe, but your goal appears to be aimed at convincing your audience of the overall absurdity of religion. Your tone of mockery was directed at the teachings of every religion, pointing out what is in your opinion, completely irrational for anyone to actually believe. Not to say that you don't make some valid points in your objections with different people in their respective religions. In fact, I agree with some of the issues you raise regarding the different practices, rituals, and actions of certain "religious people". However you associate the actions of man to religion as a whole. It is a miscalculation that many people make resulting in them turning away from God altogether. It results in them blaming God for the actions of man. See, God gives us all freewill, so that means we are free to do what we will, believe what we will, and act as we will, even if it means that we are in direct disobedience with His word. We have the freedom to do it. Why, you ask would God trust a people who have exhibited absolutely no record of being able to handle the responsibility of free will? I don't know. Nor would I question God, but I definitely question mans interpretation of God's Word.

You described religion, as you have many times in the past, as a "neurological disorder that spreads guilt and hatred among people while offering nothing in return."

I can't say that I completely disagree with your position. Religion has been the main cause of most of the wars this world has ever seen. It is true that the majority of wars have been caused by the simple fact that people do not respect beliefs other than their own. This has been a worldwide problem for centuries, and will continue to be the cause of wars probably until judgment day. To quote Common,"Who am I to say to whom you pray ain't right?"

Furthermore, not only do they not respect it, but they view it as their mission in life to convert, convince, or force (take your pick) others to believe what they believe. Don't think that I'm not including Christianity in this. There is a saying, "As long as there has been a God, there have been those who kill in his name." Wars have been fought all throughout history because of the belief that "my god is better than yours" From the Catholic missionaries who invaded parts of Africa and The West Indies in an attempt to convert the masses of people who were "lost" without the "enlightenment" of Catholicism. To the present day Janjeweed who are slaughtering Sudanese by the thousands under the direction of Sharia Law in an effort to convert the entire country to Islam. That practice is evil no matter who does it. Whether it is the Christians, the Muslims, the Catholics or whoever, but that is also a deviation from the teaching in the Bible and the Koran. That is simply man using religion to fit his own evil agenda.

During the movie you proclaimed...

"Religion is the power to divert man to destructive courses."

It's not the religion that diverts man; it's the fanatics that use religion to justify their cause. As evidence with the early settlers, the founders of this nation, who used Christianity to justify the enslavement of millions of people. That is a reflection of their wickedness. They used Christianity to justify their agendas, which is the easiest, and most cowardly way to defend their position and/or actions. That reminds me of a saying, "people without a conscious will even lie to themselves."

In an episode of Real Time With Bill Maher, your final word on the death of Jerry Falwell is not one that I could take issue with. You summed it up perfectly in your statement...

"Jerry Falwell found out that you can launder your hate through the cover of God's will."

Reeza Aslan, Middle East analyst for CBS news, and author of No God, But God, made a great point on your show that you completely missed. In response to the accusation that some religions are of peace while other religions are of the sword, he made the very insightful and what should have been enlightening point when he said...

It's not religion that's violent or peaceful, its people who are violent or peaceful. Whether you believe it or not, God doesn't make you a bigot, God doesn't make you a misogynist. People are just bigots and misogynists. The thing about religion is that it provides a powerful language through which you can justify any ideology. Whether ideologies of peace and tolerance or ideologies of fanaticism. What we really need to do is those people who represent the vast moderate majority of people of faith who get drowned out by this very loud obnoxious voice of extremism and violence. It's hard to make ourselves heard, but we really need to work harder and make sure that our voice actually matters.

This is the problem. We don't hear that rational voice enough. What we do hear is the voice of religious extremism such as Bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Pat Robertson, Paul Weyrich, or Jerry Falwell... etc. We are constantly bombarded with voices that not only echo condemnation and separation, but also are acting as a wedge instead of a bridge to bring people together.

Rev. Jerry Falwell on Sept. 14, 2001 places blame for the events that occurred on Sept. 11th:

The abortionists have got to bear some of the burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all those who have tried to secularize America- point the finger in their face and say: You helped this happen

Paul Weyrich:

We are in the vanguard of those who understand the threat that true believing Moslems represent to both Christians and Jews and ... all of us who believe in our Judeo- Christian civilization must fight to preserve it. .. Muslims should be encouraged to leave [America]. They are a 5th column in this country.

A booklet written by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner was passed out to soldiers preparing for a recent 22 - day Gaza offensive that resulted in more than 1,300 Palestinians (mostly civilians) killed.

"When you show mercy to a cruel enemy, you are being cruel to pure and honest soldiers... This is a war on murderers." He also cites a Torah ban on "surrendering a single millimeter" of Greater Israel.

The messages of these extremists are not soaked in the word of God. They are soaked in the word of man. These men are masking their own beliefs and prejudices in the word of God, and that is a reflection of them, not of God. I understand how you can equate such evil to the very institution that these people are claiming to represent. However, what you have to understand is that this is a grave misrepresentation of not only the true nature of God but also His word.

In another interview, you spoke of your issues with your Catholic upbringing. You have had some bad experiences that have tainted your view of religion as a whole. In your words..

They tried to scare me. I remember vividly once when I was preparing for my first communion. I remember I was sitting; my arms were on the pew in front of me. I was slumped over. And I remember a nun said to me, 'The boy who is slumped over is going to go to hell.' For slouching.

I have to admit that made me laugh. I too had some pretty bad experiences growing up. My mother put me in Catholic school when I was younger, and those were the worse three years of my adolescent life.

I have memories of some of the meanest, most racist nuns that ever walked the planet. I remember Sister Emily taking a slingshot away from a student and asking them why they brought a "ni$$er shooter" to school. I remember sister Louise looking at me in front of my mom when we returned the next year and saying, "you people really grow fast." I remember Sister Agatha looking at my little brother who had a splinter in his hand, when he asked her for help, and her telling him to get it out himself. She later told my mom that she didn't even like children and was sent there by archdiocese and that if it were up to her; she would be as far away from children as she possibly could be.

I remember being sent to detention for asking, "How on earth is saying five Hail Mary's going to help anything? Does saying it more than once mean you really mean it, or do you think God didn't hear it the first time? And why do you all pray to Mary anyway?" I remember being sent to the principal's office for asking, "So let me get this straight, I am supposed to tell this stranger sitting behind a booth everything I have done wrong, and what, he is supposed to talk to Jesus for me? Why don't I take out the middle man and talk to Jesus myself?" I also remember getting in trouble for asking why Sister Mary Claire walks around sprinkling everyone with water? Why you all kneel and stand up so much in a mass that only lasts 45 min at the most (in my church, we did praise and worship for almost 45 min). I remember being told that people who question God go to hell. A nun, who has taken a vow to do the work of God for all of her days, and be bride of Christ, actually told a third grade child that if he asked questions, he would go to hell. Imagine if I was old enough to ask some of the really good questions, like why do you all allow the priests to move from parish to parish molesting and raping alter boys without being punished in any way shape or form? Or, where exactly in the bible did Jesus say that they had to take a vow of celibacy? Furthermore, could they disagree with the notion that by making something a law that is unnatural, in this case celibacy, they are opening the door for perversion? I probably would have been expelled.

However, through all of the bad experiences I had, I never thought that scripture was "made up." It simply meant that the people who were teaching me got it really, really wrong. They interpreted my inquisitions as being out of line and disrespectful to "the church." They felt that it was simply not my place to ask such things. I wasn't trying to be insolent by any stretch of the imagination; I was simply trying to gain a better understanding for what I was being taught. But again, that is not a reflection on the religion, that is a reflection of the people. If a history teacher punches her student in the face when they make a mistake, that doesn't make history wrong, it makes the teacher wrong.

I understand that although you presented Religulous as though it were an actual documentary, it was more of a comedy. You held up the ill informed yet comical people you interviewed as evidence to support your position. There were plenty of places you could've gone to have an intelligent debate on religion, just as you know where to go to have an intelligent debate on politics. Asking people dressed up in Jesus outfits in theme parks or random people at truck stops probably wouldn't elicit the most well thought out response to some of your questions. Just because you interview someone from a religion that does not make them an authority, or even qualified to speak as a representative of that religion. That's kind of like when Sarah Palin was asked about the Bush doctrine. She was not qualified to speak as a representative of the entire Republican Party. She simply misrepresented herself. No offense Mrs. Palin.

I don't believe that you were truly out for answers but only to poke fun and mock. You are not a person faith, and with that said, cannot even begin to understand any religion that requires faith at its core. What you did was overgeneralize religion, while painting a picture with far too broad of a brush. While extremely comical, it simply was not an accurate depiction. While there are a plethora of other objections that I had with your "mockumentary," I will save those for another time. Be blessed.

Comments

[Clevella]

I was fine with the letter until I got to "god gives us free will".
God gives 'us'. If you do not believe in god, then where does 'free will' come from? It seems there is a string attached to accepting the idea of free will in the first place. God gave it to you, so that you can accept or reject him. But if I reject the idea of god, my free will remains.
I can in fact, choose to live an ethical, moral life, AND reject god. So what has god really given me that I could not do for myself? What do I NEED god for?
Some religious philosophies say you should fear god. If my only motivation for being ethical is fear of punishment by a higher power, isn't that merely spiritual extortion?

[wondering]

You have, quite without realizing it, hit on one correct point - the cause of most warfare and cruelty is not due to religion. Although much evil in the world springs from religion (the Inquisition, female genital mutilation in North Africa, ad nauseum), the much stronger human characteristic that drives our insanity and barbarism toward each other is tribalism (WWII, for example).

But that doesn't let religion off the hook. The evil inherent in religion is that it allows for a very loose morality that can be used to justify anything. If god (uber-mind, Force, what-have-you) is believed to favor OUR side (as he must), then any evil can be justified under the cover of his Almighty Smile.

A morality based on the fear of a supernatural spanking, or promise of heavenly reward, is no morality at all. The threat of a rolled up newspaper to the nose may curtail your dog's habit of pooping on the rug, but that doesn't make the dog a moral being. For a morality to have meaning, you must internalize it - i.e., claim it for yourself free of external influence. Deciding to act a certain way because "god said so" is no better than choosing not to commit the act of murder solely because you might go to jail.

.

[Dap]

Ya knocked that one out of the park brother wondering, a fine analogy.

[wondering]

Hey brother Dap!

I don't come around these parts as often as I used to. What's happening?

W

.

[normathumb]

If this was meant to be some sort of apologia for religion, I am afraid it did the opposite. I can only imagine Sister Patrick's red face as she wielded her blue pencil at the gawdawfulness of this writing, content aside. The argument, as much as you can ascertain within the general incoherency, seems to be akin to 'guns dont kill people, people kill people'.
"people without a conscious will even lie to themselves­."
That is just one of the malaprops and nonsequitors that litter the essay. Religion by its essense divides people. Your one of us or not. No one has to insert bigotry or mysogony into the bible. It is there for all to read. What is really fun is to listen to believers try to reconcile their interpretation of the myriad contradictory translations of the Bible with the early texts and insist it is the unalterable word of God. How, in God's name, can a translation be the unalterable word of anything. Since much of the Bible, both testements, is cobbled together from earlier texts and religions, the whole conversation is kind of silly. It is all pretty much altered text, a rewrite. True believers can insist the demonstrable history is just Satan trying to confuse and decieve as they do with all those dinosaur bones. Some say you have to believe in order to see, but you have to disbelieve a lot you see as well.

[jellyrollhi]

"Your one of us or not."...

You should not mock the writing of others.

[TheBlackCat]

Out of curiousity, what are posters feelings about Buddhism? Most consider it a religion, but the reason it appeals to me is that it really is more a philosophy than a religion. There is no mention of a God, no mention of a soul (what is reincarnated is simply energy shaped by your karma, not YOU, not a personalized soul), and Buddha himself claimed no divinity. Though they have Nirvana- Nirvana isn't a place, it's not Heaven, it is simply a state of being. Though the monks and nuns live by strict rules, in general the Buddhist writings present themselves as "guidelines" more than "rules." Buddha himself said that no one should EVER do or think something JUST because he or another Buddhist teacher said it- that people should take the information presented and make up their own minds.

The other thing that I like about Buddhism is that all other religion seemed to be predicated on the idea that life is supposed to be perfect and wonderful, but our sinful human ways mess everything up. Whereas in Buddhism, life is acknowledged to be mostly suffering and hardship. Desires aren't SINFUL, they aren't BAD or EVIL, they are natural. Buddhism seeks to be able to CONTROL our desires and vices, moderate them, not make us feel guilty for HAVING them.

And I could be wrong here, but i'm PRETTY sure people typically don't go around killing and spreading intolerance in the name of Buddha.

[JohnFromCensornati]

My feelings about it? It still sounds like you believe you will survive your death.

[TheBlackCat]

Honestly? That's not really what interests me about it. I mean, there seems to be a certain logic to it. Energy can't be created or destroyed, so when you die, you're energy goes somewhere. But it's not YOU, as an individual, it's just your energy. It's not like I'M surviving my death, just some part of energy that was further formed by me.

But I really don't put a lot of stock in that. As I said, it makes SENSE to me (much more so than Heaven and Hell), something I think COULD happen, but it's not something I necessarily BELIEVE will happen.

[Clevella]

Interesting post. My question to you would be how do you 'control' desire?
Wouldn't it be better to know WHY you have the desires in the first place, rather than trying to ignore them?
And I agree that Buddhists typically do not oppress others in the name of their philosophy. When you have finally come to terms with your ego, you lose the need to lord it over others.

For myself, I have found that developing a practice of coming from a place of compassion has been the best way to go through life. I can't claim to always succeed. Sometimes I still get angry, but it is a fleeting state. (As everything else is.)

But when in doubt, practice compassion.

[TheBlackCat]

When I think of "controlling desires" I think of the Dutch mentality of "all things in moderation­."

I don't abstain from anything. I don't think there's anything WRONG with vice. I just make sure not to do something to the point where I think it is harmful to myself or others.

[krypton86]

Whatever Buddhism may have been when Gotama relayed it to his students, it's certainly become a religion. Several religions, in fact. I agree that what the Buddha taught was simply a philosophical method, but it's been taken over by all kinds of wacky superstitious nonsense. Tibetan Buddhism for example is more Catholic than the Pope when it comes to weird rituals and complex metaphysics, none of which have anything to do with the original teachings of Gotama Buddha.

I don't think that this means you can't practice Buddhism, of course. Anyone should be able to take it on by simply studying the Dhammapada (and other parts of the Tipitaka if desired). No organized religion necessary.

As far as the killing and intolerance, I would like to point out that the Tamil Tigers are Buddhist.

Read this for an example of what can go wrong with Buddhism: http://www.sangam.org/articles/view/?id=118

[Clevella]

Great post! I like that you point out how schools of thought mutate into things not necessarily in line with their origins.
Lots to think about!

[ignorantwillyharper]

I'd rather live my life believing there is a god, die and find out there isn't, than live my life not believing there is a god, die and find out there is a god.

[JohnFromCensornati]

How will you find out that there is no god after you're dead?

[kwinter]

There you go again ... you and your silly logic!

[FalconerHK]

Religious moderates enable religious zealots. As long as an act is committed by zealots under the guise of religious freedom - no matter how barbaric - the moderates will devise some inane rationale to excuse it.

Case in point: FLDS. If a 40-something year-old pedophile has sex with a 13 year-old girl, he'll be swiftly vilified and incarcerated for child rape, molestation, kidnapping, etc. - and quite rightly so. However, if that 40-something year-old pedophile is a self proclaimed leader of a splinter Christian sect and rapes countless children - even fathering children with children - he's simply exercising religious freedom, drawing supporters from across the country protesting the State's decision to remove the children from the situation.

There is no justification to excuse this willing ambivalence. The "brand" doesn't matter, either - passive, peaceful Jews are permitting the zealot freakshow in Israel to continue their genocidal tirade against the palestinians; passive, peaceful muslims tolerate the taliban and passive, peaceful christians stand by while the Warren Jeffs and other criminal charlatans steal, rape, kill, conquer, invade, plunder and commit horrific acts in the name of the "prince of peace".

Mahr is right. We've let this go on for too long and it's time to start pulling the all-loving veneer away from criminal behavior. Our weapons technologies are too lethal to be directed and deployed by people who still believe in invisible, omnipotent nannies and boogeymen who can only be beaten by the destruction of the world as we know it.

[kwinter]

The difference between a cult and a religion, is just the number of members.

[chroma601]

Organized religion has lost God's message, it seems. The underlying principal of every worthwhile religious movement has been the Christian Golden Rule and the Buddhist Law of Karma - that we should all be looking out for each other more than we should be looking out for ourselves.

Bill is on the mark because he realizes Religion has lost its way. It has become divisive, rather than encouraging us to love each other and understand our differences. True spirituality is missing, or hiding at best. My niece claims to be a Christian, but is unaware of what Jesus was saying. She just thinks she'll get into heaven by following the church. No effort there.

So I'm with Bill on this, but I will say I admire spirituality, compassion, and kindness. These days those traits are generally missing from religion when they should be the focus of it.

[TheBlackCat]

"Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

You will eat, by and by,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die"

-Joe Hill

[BustMyChops]

I suggest that Mr. Thomas watch part 1 of the Zeitgeist movie(it's free online). Warning: It may cause your head to explode from an overdose of REALITY.

[nomoron]

The thing that amazes me is the fact we're even having this conversation. The arguement over who's right when it comes to the existence of god is as ludicrous as it is futile. Neither side really has a clue, nor will they ever prove beyond a doubt the validity of their opinions. The real tragedy in all of this is both sides' posture that one is out to destroy the other and the lack of respect this debate will continue to instill in those fighting for a cause. Trying to prove or disprove one's opinion on a subject that inherently lacks the ability of such shows neither insight or intelligence on the part of those trying to make a point. Human nature and man's ability to reason is such that, for some, faith will always be a necessary part of their lives. Others don't see the need. One thing's for sure.... The fighting between religious groups and secularists will continue to keep humanity divided, unable to answer and attack the larger problems facing the human race.

[Dap]

Sophism... your so called conventional wisdom has huge holes in it and will not pass 21st century Scrutiny. Nice try though.

[JohnFromCensornati]

You must be on the side that doesn't have a clue.

[Zanti]

You're lucky the word "sophism" exists, or you'd find yourself having to provide a meaningful rebuttal sometime.

[kwinter]

"Human nature and man's ability to reason is such that, for some, faith will always be a necessary part of their lives."
That is one of the most insensate statements I've ever read!
"man's ability to reason" is exactly what makes faith unnecessary!

[nomoron]

I rest my case....

[Jeffreygeez]

Behave now and when your dead you will be rewarded, I promise.

Place your donations here .

A faith based pyramid scheme. Madoff's client's had faith also. Blind faith,same vision

It's a business silly.

[Zanti]

Not really, given that neo-atheists, as a group, equate "reasoning" with being able to distinguish fact from fantasy--that and nothing more. And our ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is pretty limited, given our tiny understanding of the universe we live in and given the fact that the human brain, in constructing the data it receives from the five senses, produces a very distorted picture of reality. This is not to say that we should fill in the "gaps" in our understanding with fantasy or baseless claims, but it does suggest the neo-atheist version of logic and reason is as hilariously inadequate as the most conservative believer's version of faith.

Absolute certainty is idiocy, no matter how it's labeled. God vs. eternal death or fact vs. fantasy--neither reduction aids us in understanding the world we live in. Or understanding ourselves. While your side is doing its Joe Friday impression and the other side is preaching Hell and flames, the rest of us are living in a far more complex, nuanced, and meaningful place. We regard the either/or people with bemusement.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"The fighting between religious groups and secularists will continue to keep humanity divided, unable to answer and attack the larger problems facing the human race."

Actually, it's the fighting between rival religious gangs that will continue to keep humanity divided, just like it always has. Don't blame it on us unbelievers.

[Zanti]

"Don't blame it on us unbeliever­s."

I wouldn't dream of it. You're the most civil and understanding group that ever walked the cyberway. Not a hostile or sarcastic sentiment in the bunch.

[Zanti]

The problem is with the absolute thinkers on both sides, and they are (thank God) a minority. On one side, the Bible is promoted as the final word. On the other, science is promoted as the one and only valid avenue of inquiry. One side has God in charge of everything; the other side has logic and reason dictating the direction of reality. Don't even bother trying to suggest that logic and reason are derived from the workings of reality--in other words, that logic and reason answer to reality, not vice versa. They won't get it.

Literal minds need their absolute authorities. To them, the only alternative to absolute rules are no rules at all. But the third alternative is a universe that, in the simple fact of being, generates its own "rules." Reality is a living document. But literal minds see reality as fixed in form, simply because that's how it appears to our deceived senses.

[kwinter]

"The problem is with the absolute thinkers ..."
Your comments appear to me, to sound like the rantings of a person who sees religionists and atheists in absolutes.

[wondering]

The oft-stated canard that both sides of the debate are somehow equivalent because neither can "prove" their position is laughable - and tiresome.

The easiest way to illustrate the fallacy of that argument is through analogy. Every December, millions of human beings believe that a fat man in a red suit comes down their (usually non-existent) chimneys to leave presents behind - a popular, wide-spread belief. Personally, I don't think he does. But of course I cannot really "prove" that Santa doesn't exist. Even if I pay for the items under my tree with my own hard-earned cash, he might just be going to other people's houses instead. Or maybe he takes my purchases, and replaces them with his own goodies.

But are both sides of the Santa/no-Santa debate equally valid? When a fantastical claim is made, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant. If you claim that neanderthals wielding light-sabers and riding on dragons live in the woods of Maine, must I go to Maine and search the woods exhaustively to prove you wrong? Even if I turn over every rock, and knock down every tree, you'll just move the goalposts and announce, "oh yeah, and they're invisible!"

If you must believe in invisible friends, I suggest you keep it to yourself lest others judge you a nut.

.

[krypton86]

Comment Continued:

The way in which the shell game analogy (see my previous comment) fails is that I could eventually find this hypothetical shell game if it actually existed (with the help of the police or the FBI) and have the psychopath arrested. With religion, I don't even have the opportunity to confirm the existence of the hypothetical shell game until I'm out from under the influence (through death) of the proselytizer who told the me the story in the first place. That's mighty convenient for the proselytizer.

I'm sorry, but this leads me to one of two possibilities: 1) The game-master is evil and must be stopped, or 2) The proselytizer is one heck of a liar and should be publicly ridiculed and then completely ignored (or arrested if he/she is a con-artist). The latter seems the most appropriate response.

Herein lies the rub for the proselytizer. No one has ever seen this hypothetical shell game being played. Ever. As far as anyone knows, the game-master is not only a psychopath, he's also some kind of ninja (or invisible). Regardless, this is the problem with religion. It's built upon a lie that people aren't necessarily aware they're telling.

[kwinter]

Thank you, krypton!

[krypton86]

Consider this:

You're walking down the street and someone comes up to you and says "Hey, there's a guy somewhere in town that has a shell game you must play, but you have to decide which shell has the bean under it right now, before you ever meet him and actually play the game. Once you meet him, which will happen at the time and location of his choosing, he will reveal to you the correct answer. Keep in mind that if you choose incorrectly, he will torture you until you die. Oh, and by the way, the bean is under the leftmost shell because this pamphlet that I have says so."

I think most people would agree that the only response to this is something like "get the hell away from me or I'm calling the cops," but this is very much what religion and the religious are like. God is the supposed game-master, the bean is the One True Religion, and the person telling you the tale is the proselytizer.

[jmpfjoy]

Great analogy, Krypton.

I knew there was a reason I didn't like beans.....­.

[TheBlackCat]

agreed. Very good analogy

[Zanti]

Anything can be deified, and I don't find the worshiping of logic and reason any less nutty than the worshiping of a super-being. What needs to be avoided is literal belief in some universal authority. The culprit here is the conceit that reality follows from absolute principles of some type.

[Dap]

Speaking of non sequiturs.­... Jeesh. A theater of the absurd indeed.

[glitterik]

Consider that religion does indeed provide cover for mean spirited, hate-filled people. And provides an attraction for them and their gun-loving, gay hating, liberal bashing friends. And perhaps the country's more level headed, loving and tolerant counterparts are ... mostly atheists or agnostics. I personally do not know any church-going, bible-believing people of tolerance. They all have something to be against, something to hate and fear. If religious people feel that no one can take an objective examination of religion and its core beliefs without religion ending up looking ridiculous, that is, my dear, the very point!

[jmpfjoy]

I never cease to be amazed at the fact that so many of us, and we're supposed to be intelligent, believe in the fairy tales, superstitions, and ritual of religion, mostly because they possess some magical attribute called "faith".

Having "faith" means they never have to answer the hard questions about their beliefs.

[Zanti]

Gee, never heard that take before....

[JohnFromCensornati]

Thou shalt not bear false witness or something like that.

[Barbara Campbell]

Well said Mr. Thomas.