Such deep seated emotion.Your rants remind me of the guy with the macho facade who exaggeratedly goes on about gays to compensate for his own sexual insecurity.Something about protesting too much. Or disproportionately? Something. One cannot miss the seething hate coming out of this ever more popular sentiment.(And, regardless of my qualifier that I am not even religious myself, my disagreeing will label me as such.)
Bottom line is that, when religions are eliminated,greedy, or power-hungry, or perverted people will operate in the name of SOMETHING ELSE. That this is missed betrays some particular, or individual grudge against religion or, what or who, in your eyes,a certain religion symboli...

Such deep seated emotion.Your rants remind me of the guy with the macho facade who exaggeratedly goes on about gays to compensate for his own sexual insecurity.Something about protesting too much. Or disproportionately? Something. One cannot miss the seething hate coming out of this ever more popular sentiment.(And, regardless of my qualifier that I am not even religious myself, my disagreeing will label me as such.)
Bottom line is that, when religions are eliminated,greedy, or power-hungry, or perverted people will operate in the name of SOMETHING ELSE. That this is missed betrays some particular, or individual grudge against religion or, what or who, in your eyes,a certain religion symbolizes. For just as the clip points out, the biggest bashers of religion (read:Christianity) are by and large promoting Islam and holding it up to be "cool" -- like never before.

ratilfar..

If one wants to look at the negatives of history and ignore all the nobility of history one can do so for any persuasion or crusade one wishes to espouse.

If however one is looking for the good in mankind one can find that as well.

I challenge you to use MODERN times to illustrate for me where a Christianized people are destroying their own as is the case with non- chrisitianized societies.

If one wants to argue the evil effects of RELIGION I will not disagree with you one bit. RELIGION has even soured the CHRISTIAN faith with its misapplied scripture. In fact a case could be made that it was RELIGION that crucified CHRIST.

Religious wars have been and continue to be waged i...

ratilfar..

If one wants to look at the negatives of history and ignore all the nobility of history one can do so for any persuasion or crusade one wishes to espouse.

If however one is looking for the good in mankind one can find that as well.

I challenge you to use MODERN times to illustrate for me where a Christianized people are destroying their own as is the case with non- chrisitianized societies.

If one wants to argue the evil effects of RELIGION I will not disagree with you one bit. RELIGION has even soured the CHRISTIAN faith with its misapplied scripture. In fact a case could be made that it was RELIGION that crucified CHRIST.

Religious wars have been and continue to be waged in all corners of the world. HOWEVER this clip was comparing the secularized media's attempt to downplay the evils of a radical Islamic jihadists by demonizing bible believing Christians.

Now if the article was comparing the evils of both religious persons then I would not find much of an argument against it. It is the disproportionate evil rhetoric aimed at the Christian community that was being pointed out in this article.

And the comments to this topic so far support the findings of the author of the original piece.

All I ask is that all that is evil receive the same disdainful treatment. It is the attempts to downplay the evil rendered by an admitted terroristic organization that is so appalling.

Religion is the biggest mistake of mankind. Religion Ties in with
everything that is wrong with the world today e.g Money, Power, Greed,
Violence, War etc....etc.....

Really? My faith teaches that all of the aforementioned vices are sins. For which my religion teaches is punishable by death. NOT STONING, not beheading, not being blown to bits by a car bomb, but being excluded from the prescence of a loveing God. In other words death to one's soul.

Therefore my religion teaches we are required to repent of such vile vices and live a peacable life and work towards reconciling a fallen world to God. Not by force but by giving up our lives for the sake of others.

I can see how ...

Religion is the biggest mistake of mankind. Religion Ties in with
everything that is wrong with the world today e.g Money, Power, Greed,
Violence, War etc....etc.....

Really? My faith teaches that all of the aforementioned vices are sins. For which my religion teaches is punishable by death. NOT STONING, not beheading, not being blown to bits by a car bomb, but being excluded from the prescence of a loveing God. In other words death to one's soul.

Therefore my religion teaches we are required to repent of such vile vices and live a peacable life and work towards reconciling a fallen world to God. Not by force but by giving up our lives for the sake of others.

I can see how this is repugnate to those who wish to rule and hold power over others but my religion teaches that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. Those who desire to be great need to become a servant to others.

Again this would be an anathama to those who like being in charge and demanding their own way. Therefore I can see how Christianity would be an afront to anyone espousing the ME FIRST mentality.

A true believer in Christ puts others first and themselves last. But to those who are perishing this makes absolutely no sense.

So basically your saying that those who are in power and profess to be devote are in fact not so? Good point.

As for evidence...from the Constitution...

ARTICLE VI. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This clause exist because in England it was illegal fro Catholics to hold office (and where perseucted before, Mary Queen of Scots lo...

So basically your saying that those who are in power and profess to be devote are in fact not so? Good point.

As for evidence...from the Constitution...

ARTICLE VI. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This clause exist because in England it was illegal fro Catholics to hold office (and where perseucted before, Mary Queen of Scots lost her head because she did not renounce her catholicism).

From the Federalist Paper #19 discussing the Wars of Religion

So far as the peculiarity of their case will admit of comparison
with that of the United States, it serves to confirm the principle
intended to be established. Whatever efficacy the union may have had in
ordinary cases, it appears that the moment a cause of difference sprang
up, capable of trying its strength, it failed. The controversies on the
subject of RELIGION, which in three
instances have kindled violent and bloody contests, may be said, in
fact, to have severed the league. The Protestant and Catholic cantons
have since had their separate diets, where all the most important
concerns are adjusted, and which have left the general diet little
other business than to take care of the common bailages.

That separation had another consequence, which merits attention. It
produced opposite alliances with foreign powers: of Berne, at the head
of the Protestant association, with the United Provinces; and of
Luzerne, at the head of the Catholic association, with France.

And on protecting all SECTS Madison wrote on Fedearilist #51:

The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the
United States. Whilst all

Quote continued...

The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of SECTS. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and SECTS; and th...

Quote continued...

The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of SECTS. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and SECTS; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government.

Federalist #57

Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, OF RELIGIOUS FAITH, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people. If we consider the situation of

People with with good hearts are the ones that rise to the occasion, regardless
of the religion or lack thereof.

And goodness comes from? Mother Earth? Green Tea? Mushrooms? Secular Humanism? Voodoo? Witchcraft? Aliens? Evolution? Or is goodness just a state of being? And who is it that measures such goodness? Is there a book you can learn goodness from? Can it be taught at the university level? Is one born good? And if so then is the reverse true that some are just born bad? And if you are born bad what do you do? Is there anyway one can change that tendency toward badness to goodness? And again wouldn't the teaching of goodness require RELIGION? or DOGMA? or TENET? or som...

People with with good hearts are the ones that rise to the occasion, regardless
of the religion or lack thereof.

And goodness comes from? Mother Earth? Green Tea? Mushrooms? Secular Humanism? Voodoo? Witchcraft? Aliens? Evolution? Or is goodness just a state of being? And who is it that measures such goodness? Is there a book you can learn goodness from? Can it be taught at the university level? Is one born good? And if so then is the reverse true that some are just born bad? And if you are born bad what do you do? Is there anyway one can change that tendency toward badness to goodness? And again wouldn't the teaching of goodness require RELIGION? or DOGMA? or TENET? or some sort of guidelines or measurement?

Boy all these smart people just confound me.

The Golden Rule is logic, n ot dogma or religion.

I see so therefore the fact that Jesus spoke of this Golden rule negates Jesus or the religion of Christianity? Or was Jesus espousing some ancient tenet he learned from say a shama somewhere? Where did this GOLDEN RULE COME FROM? Was it like inherent in someone like a Brown LLAMA or something? Did this Golden RULE fall out of the sky somewhere? WHO taught this logic? HOW do we know that this GOLDEN RULE is such a good thing? I MEAN it can not be good because that JESUS dude spoke about it and we all know HE makes idiots out of people who follow his teachings. I mean if JESUS taught this GOLDEN rule then I do not wish to follo...

The Golden Rule is logic, n ot dogma or religion.

I see so therefore the fact that Jesus spoke of this Golden rule negates Jesus or the religion of Christianity? Or was Jesus espousing some ancient tenet he learned from say a shama somewhere? Where did this GOLDEN RULE COME FROM? Was it like inherent in someone like a Brown LLAMA or something? Did this Golden RULE fall out of the sky somewhere? WHO taught this logic? HOW do we know that this GOLDEN RULE is such a good thing? I MEAN it can not be good because that JESUS dude spoke about it and we all know HE makes idiots out of people who follow his teachings. I mean if JESUS taught this GOLDEN rule then I do not wish to follow it because then I would be espousing some sort of religion wouldn't I? Based on the arguments heretofor so eloguently espoused by those who know more than I. If I accept these teachings of yours as correct wouldn't I become a disciple of yours? I mean if we all have free thought and can do whatever the heck we deem is GOLDEN and LOGICAL then you are you to say that the way I believe is NOT GOLDEN and logical?

I am so confused.. ENLIGHTEN me those of you who seem to have FOUND the way.

I will concede that you can not legislate morality. You can not make someone love you if they don't. You can not make someone care of they care not. You can not force someone to believe if they believe not. BUT just because you can not legislate it does not negate it.

Love turn around the most vile person and make them respectable. BUT where does this LOVE come from? Where is its origin? I can not believe that it lies inert in common man because I have seen the depth of depravity of the COMMON MAN.

I have also seen the REDEMPTION of a depraved man through the power of the Holy Spirit as given by God through Jesus Christ. I stand in awe at the miracle working power of the Gospel of Christ.
...

I will concede that you can not legislate morality. You can not make someone love you if they don't. You can not make someone care of they care not. You can not force someone to believe if they believe not. BUT just because you can not legislate it does not negate it.

Love turn around the most vile person and make them respectable. BUT where does this LOVE come from? Where is its origin? I can not believe that it lies inert in common man because I have seen the depth of depravity of the COMMON MAN.

I have also seen the REDEMPTION of a depraved man through the power of the Holy Spirit as given by God through Jesus Christ. I stand in awe at the miracle working power of the Gospel of Christ.

The Gospel of Christ is not logical nor is it physical for it is SPIRITUAL and those who are not spiritual will never comprehend it.

It is not logical that the creator would allow the created to execute him. One would think that the CREATOR would force His will on all not allow the created to do as they please. It is not logical that Jesus would come to earth to bear the sins of the world. It would be more logical to do away with the sinning people don't you think? I mean what logical sense does it make for HE who made the pot to let the pot tell him what it should be?

Course to the logical all this is nonsense. Which makes the power of the Gospel so much more FANTASTIC because it is illogical. AMEN

Problem here is that you believe that religion is the ONLY answer and without it
morality can not exist.

Nope I do not believe as you say I believe. HOWEVER who is to say who is moral? Is there some code to which morality is measured? Whom is it that holds that code? Is there some judge somewhere who deems one moral over another? NO according to you all morality is a personal thing. We each or moral or immoral depending on what we deem is moral behavior. THEREFORE blowing your blooming heads off seems like the most logical thing to do at the moment considering you all are pissing me off with all this gooblegook about this way or that way or anywhich way you can as long as n...

Problem here is that you believe that religion is the ONLY answer and without it
morality can not exist.

Nope I do not believe as you say I believe. HOWEVER who is to say who is moral? Is there some code to which morality is measured? Whom is it that holds that code? Is there some judge somewhere who deems one moral over another? NO according to you all morality is a personal thing. We each or moral or immoral depending on what we deem is moral behavior. THEREFORE blowing your blooming heads off seems like the most logical thing to do at the moment considering you all are pissing me off with all this gooblegook about this way or that way or anywhich way you can as long as no one else says it is not a good way.

You want to judge others but you yourselves want to be exempt from judgement of any kind. You spout about morality yet you espouse immorality or situacional ethics as the rule or model to strive for. OKAY if it does not matter how you live and there is no one to give an account to then we might as well all do as we damn well please don't you think?

And if you do not agree with that statement who the heck are you to tell me what I can and can not do? You can not tell me what to do because then you would be FORCING your way of thinking upon me. And you say you are against such things.

Man it seems to me this way of thinking is a whole lot harder than believing in GOD. At least then we have someone to blame all the crap on eh?

Ok...I never said that morality was situational. Morality is a construct of the self and society. There is personal morality and there is socially acceptable behavior. And your right it is harder than believing in God, nobody said it was easier (although I do believe in God, but thats between him and me).

What I do affects myself and others, and if I behave irresponsibly, their will be consequences for that behavior, but to simply reduce it to a religious paradigm, while comforting is neither accurate or entirely logical.

And part of the problem I believe is those who claim to be so high and mighty, judging everybody else and yet hide their own foibles and sins behind close doors, leade...

Ok...I never said that morality was situational. Morality is a construct of the self and society. There is personal morality and there is socially acceptable behavior. And your right it is harder than believing in God, nobody said it was easier (although I do believe in God, but thats between him and me).

What I do affects myself and others, and if I behave irresponsibly, their will be consequences for that behavior, but to simply reduce it to a religious paradigm, while comforting is neither accurate or entirely logical.

And part of the problem I believe is those who claim to be so high and mighty, judging everybody else and yet hide their own foibles and sins behind close doors, leaders and politicians that talk about family values, marriage and morality and are in fact follow non of those tenets. Don't tell me to be moral, show me what it is to be moral. Lead not by word, but by example.

Don't tell me to be moral, show me what it is to be moral. Lead not by word, but
by example.

So then those who choose as an example the exempiary life if Jesus Christ as a leader to model their lives after are told they are STUPID, Ignorant, blind, unelightened, etc.

The same invectives are not hurled at those who follow lets say Mohammed Whoeverhisnamemaybe. OKAY why is this?

Are only those who FOLLOW this Jesus person on the open season list? Or is it rather that some who proclaim to follow this JESUS person actually are mascarading as disciples when in reality they are not? And these mauraders are then pointed out as examples of Christian behavior.

It is like when o...

Don't tell me to be moral, show me what it is to be moral. Lead not by word, but
by example.

So then those who choose as an example the exempiary life if Jesus Christ as a leader to model their lives after are told they are STUPID, Ignorant, blind, unelightened, etc.

The same invectives are not hurled at those who follow lets say Mohammed Whoeverhisnamemaybe. OKAY why is this?

Are only those who FOLLOW this Jesus person on the open season list? Or is it rather that some who proclaim to follow this JESUS person actually are mascarading as disciples when in reality they are not? And these mauraders are then pointed out as examples of Christian behavior.

It is like when one plants a garden of wheat and a few stalks of tares grow up with the wheat. A good farmer does not plow under the whole field just because a few stalks of tares where found in the wheat field. Instead the good farmer first gathers up all the tares and burns them and then goes and gathers the wheat.

Using bad examples to argue against Good is like throwing the baby out with the bath water I would think.

Morality is a construct of the self and society. There is personal morality and there is socially acceptable behavior.

Here is where we will disagree in principle. If there is no absolute right or absolute wrong then by definition anything goes. The world is littered with ANYTHING goes morality. Those with the biggest guns or the strongest oppress the weaker. That is not enlightenment that is survival of the fittest in its basest form.

Nature practices such behavior. I think we as EVOLVED human beings should aim a little bit higher than animals wouldn't you think?

Without quidelines in life one wanders around aimlessly shouting at targets that are ever changing. Without a m...

Morality is a construct of the self and society. There is personal morality and there is socially acceptable behavior.

Here is where we will disagree in principle. If there is no absolute right or absolute wrong then by definition anything goes. The world is littered with ANYTHING goes morality. Those with the biggest guns or the strongest oppress the weaker. That is not enlightenment that is survival of the fittest in its basest form.

Nature practices such behavior. I think we as EVOLVED human beings should aim a little bit higher than animals wouldn't you think?

Without quidelines in life one wanders around aimlessly shouting at targets that are ever changing. Without a moral compass of sorts (you say religion I say core beliefs) one just lives and let lives. Whatever seems right at the time to myself is well RIGHT because there is no moral AUTHORITY no absolute right or wrong and NO ONE WORTHY to call my actions into account. And if it so happens that I have the STRONGEST arm in the matter then MY WAY will win the day until a stronger man comes along RIGHT?

This sounds like anarchy to me and is demonstrated around the world in nations with well NO MORAL compass. The bible would call them heathen nations. We may just call them unenlightened. WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE who is enlightened and who is not?

Or does your position of taking GOD out of anything make you then god? Is it you everyone must check with to see if they are living a GOOD LIFE according to whom?

I have been asking lots of good questions and there seems to be very few answers to explain this LIVE LIKE YOU WANT and choose your own morality 'religion' being bandered about like it is some HIGHER way of living.

I think the evidence is in. That way of living is fruitless and vain.
Giving ones life for someone else is the greatest act of love any man could have. AND to lay it down for an enemy is well saintly. IMO

Do you know anyone like that? I do.

With any religion, a claim of authority to judge right and wrong is proclaimed by that religion's promoters by their claiming that it comes from God. They believe that by claiming it comes from God that no humans can challenged them on what they proclaim to be right and wrong... because it is “God” that has said it is so.

The problem with this is no human has the ability to prove anything about God. No human can ever prove what God wants, commands, expects, thinks etc. As long as this is the case, no human has the authority, justification or right to dictate to any other human anything.

If you take religion out, then everyone has the right call any person or group on anything they...

With any religion, a claim of authority to judge right and wrong is proclaimed by that religion's promoters by their claiming that it comes from God. They believe that by claiming it comes from God that no humans can challenged them on what they proclaim to be right and wrong... because it is “God” that has said it is so.

The problem with this is no human has the ability to prove anything about God. No human can ever prove what God wants, commands, expects, thinks etc. As long as this is the case, no human has the authority, justification or right to dictate to any other human anything.

If you take religion out, then everyone has the right call any person or group on anything they may attempt to impose on others. It puts everyone on equal footing.

To try and say that religion some how provides us with the yard stick for which to judge what is right or wrong makes no sense at all. So long as no religion can ever be proved to come from God, no religion has the authority or justification to claim they know the mind of God such that they can dictate to the rest of us what is right and wrong.

People seem to think that just by believing a book is from God some how makes it so. The belief, no matter how strong, in no way provides justification or authority to use it as such. The belief can not be used to provide authority or justification to push the book or the religion onto the rest of the world.

All humans exist now on an equal footing with equal authority to judge right from wrong. It is just that some try to over ride this equality by proclaiming they know the mind of God, and because they know the mind of God, everyone else must not challenge us on what we say God says.

No matter how much you what it not to be the case, this is the case, the fact, the truth. You can not get around this no matter how hard you might try.