It is strange how her arguments boils down to "Religion is NOT violent. People keep trying to diffuse fundamentalism, but they just come back with MORE Violence."

Right.

Religion is one of the deepest roots of war. Those self righteous people are just so angry all the time.

Case and point? Cue Middle East.

Yes, Karen, we know... God is here to stay because people are still stupid. But why? A free and intelligent people can find meaning without all the desperate sociological hand baggage. There is no reason to continue being the modern day equivalents of the ignorant superstitious central European peasants found in Kosinski's "The Painted Bird." It's time to get over it, dump the ignorant tribal nonsense, "mature up," dump the ego-driven afterlife baloney (Virgins in Heaven, Hell, Karma, all of it), accept the finality of death, and move forward from there to realize our true and full human potential - WITHOUT a butt-load of incredibly dumb metaphysics.

The formerly unapologetic Armstrong has thrown herself into the apologists' camp so her historical/archeological position can take a categorical stance against the works of Stenger, Dawkins, Harris, etc, and compete with them on bookstore shelves. Her muddled "God is necessary because as soon as there were humans they looked for him" stance fails to see that the falseness of the argument is within it, i.e., primitive people equals primitive thought. The earth is flat, the sun comes up, goes over and down, the mountain's exploding so someone in charge must be angry.

As Armstrong gets older she steps quietly back toward U-No-Who in that worst of "progressive" thinking way - abstract truth validates literal error. She seems to miss the point that the writers she disparages don't simply assert there is no deity in the sky, but more importantly, demonstrate repeatedly why the very argument of her new book (and its advertisement disguised as an F.P. editorial) is the real problem - that of desperately seeking to keep god alive by taking the aspects of him you like, discarding those you don't and referring to any vague "universal power" as God. It's exactly that putting a lid on the box while pretending to be expansively opening it for everyone that's got us into the mess we're in.

Her new book and editorial are all about finding a way to a New God. The question is, Why? Why in the 21st century have any god at all? Armstrong can finally argue only for tradition, the most meaningless argument of all.

Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead.

Karen Armstrong is a competent theologian, as Ben Bernanke is a competent economist. Neither one of them should be allowed into an evidence-based discussion, such as "How do we move humanity forward using evidence-based theories?" because they both refuse to ground their commentary in cognitive science, which is the replacement umbrella for their disciplines (really, a terrible word, since neither IS disciplined by reality!).

What Ms. Armstrong cannot allow into her axiomatic structure is that religion is a reaction to lack of knowledge (her comment about religion arising with human characteristics purposely avoids the easily understood explanation that humans understood little of their environment, and yes, did have an urge to understand it, or much more accurately, CONTROL it.

Religion has always been a reaction to uncertainty, solving not the problem of uncertainty, but our human nervous reactions to it. Hence, the concept of opiates: life without understanding hurts, so we'll fake some understanding and apply it to politics to keep down the questions that destabilize society.

So, as usual, Ms. Armstrong is irrelevant to FP, with its accent on reason and strong evidence. It's nice of FP to put up this article so we can show our chops at understanding why the real question is:

WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE SOURCE OF RELIGION SO WE CAN SUPPLANT IT WITH BETTER FOREIGN POLICY THAT SATISFIES THE HUMAN NEED FOR CONTROL THROUGH UNDERSTANDING.

That's why it's in FP: to show us what kind of drivel to avoid. Thanks, editors. It's quite enough, however, unless you want to put in some politically oriented rebuttals from Doug Hofstadter or Dan Dennett.

Or even Noam Chomsky, if you've got the spine.

Science is just as prone to producing violence as religion. The two most deadly philosophies of the 20th century were atheist. Jesus was no more responsible for the inquisition than Nobel and Einstein were responsible for the misuse of their discoveries. The true purpose of religion has always been to move hearts and minds towards love and fellowship between us. Using religion as an excuse for violence and domination is particularly unacceptable, but this doesn’t make religion responsible for the misuse.

Religion has not always been to "move hearts and minds towards love". You might have a nice image of what you think religion to be, however history doesn't agree with you. Second, what two philosophies might you be talking about? For only communism was atheistic, albeit Stalin did not do what he did in the name of atheism. Stalin was motivated by his own ego and his version of marxism. Second, Fascism is not atheistic. In fact, Hitler received help from the Vatican and used Jesus and religion in his speeches often. Fascism is synonymous with Radical Right Wing Christianity at the time. Time to learn your history.

Voiceofreason, once again you are accusing religion of what people do in it's name, just as some might accuse democracy for mistakes some polititians might make; a knife is neither good nor evil; it depends on the use you make of it. Our intelligence is neither good or evil; it depends how we use it. it is religion that is supposed to lay the moral basis of society; When religion is misused, the social structure on which that society is laid crumbles into savegry and violence.

Concord, you seem to be implying that all ideologies or social institutions are benign and that only humans are flawed. Thus Fascism, as an ideology, was not bad it was just those Germans who used it in a bad manner. The fact of the matter is that ideas have consequences. If anything I have said on these posts should be remembered it is that. Religions, political ideologies, social trends, all have real world impacts. Humans are flawed, we are in agreement there. However, there ARE good and bad ideas. Ideas that further the human cause and those that hinder it. I am not sure why you are so willing to excuse all beliefs as benign, however you are wrong to do so.

Is it ironic that that your post and the first 3 replies were basically attacks on the author?

I think it is funny and leads me to ask the following.

What religion are you?

VOICEOFREASON, CKWEBBIT, BUNKHABIT, MANORAMA and ORMONDOTVOS all you of attacked KAREN ARMSTRONG directly or indirectly.

So according to what CKWEBBIT stated: "Religion is one of the deepest roots of war. Those self righteous people are just so angry all the time. " All of you must be religious.

It amazes me how she managed to publish such ill-argumented bogus. Dear editors of FP, please spare us from such nonsense in the future.

I never attacked Mrs. Armstrong. I disagreed and discussed her arguments.

Technology and science can certainly provide a means for doing horrific things, but not the motivation. From the catapult to the H-bomb, our physics was not the reason behind their development and use. Also, it's important to remember that the 20th century's 'body counts' are again a reflection of the 'means' provided by newer technology. If there were F-14's, Abrams tanks, and mustard gas during the Crusades, the death toll would have reflected that.

You bring up a good point that I think is due to an error in today's labeling of the current debate. We contrast religion with atheism, as opposed theism with atheism (kind of the basic position) and say Christianity with secular humanism (contrasting value/philosophical systems). The atheist regimes that we like to trot out are pretty inconsistent, philosophically, with the, humanist, freethought positions held by virtually any of the "new atheists". Stalin etc, simply put themselves, the state, etc in the place of God(s) and kept the dogma that characterized religious states.

you are just a poor guy that believe easily what your governor's said you. just think that what was the same property of recnt wars. of course that was the presence of US. let accept that the problem in afghanistan and iraq wars , was islam. what was the problem of vietnam. what was the sin of poor vietnamian, that toasted by US bombs. as it is clear , the problem is not deal with islam or any other religon . wars are based on power . don't be so stuipd.

Whether or not religion is the source of violence, or any particular religion is violent misses the point entirely...

Religion, any religion - is dogma. The notion that you should could or would accept anything on faith is a rejection of the most important effort humankind can make - the search for truth.

The unquestioning adherence to religious doctrine is the basest form of moral and intellectual cowardice - the complete abnegation of responsibility for your actions or attitudes.

When you are willing to ignore the need for a rational basis for belief, you can be lead literally to believe anything, and since the rational basis is rejected out of hand - there can be no situation in which it occurs to you that your belief is incorrect.

Further, by refusing to consider the basis for belief from a reasonable perspective - you also avoid any responsibility for any actions taken on the basis of that belief. It is precisely this mechanism that allows otherwise sane and reasonable people to participate in things like witch-burning or flying airplanes into buildings....if you consider your belief to be beyond question, you shift responsibilty from yourself to the unknown, the unquestionable.

It is precisely why religion is dangerous and will be ultimately fatal to the human species - if we cannot evolve beyond to need for fairy tales, in beliefs that defy reason, if we cannot escape the bondage of Bronze Age mythologies, then we are doomed as a species.

When I first came across this article by Armstrong in FP, it was refreshing that someone would address the subject of God. This was supposed to be a debate about the topic of God, yet the comments are filled with attacks on Armstrong's writings. There are incalculable things to be thankful for with the advent of "religion", and the belief in monotheism. When someone states that those who believe in God are not intelligent it strikes me odd they can make such a claim themselves. I often wonder if these same individuals believe in gamma rays? Astronomers talk of 'dark matter',and we ask ourselves does it exist even though we cannot see it? When I was a young boy my family moved into a home that cemented my believe in the metaphysical world, and it was then I understood this universe has other dimensions.
It was in that town home that my family saw things which were not physically possible.
Doors opened and closed when no one was upstairs, the television and radio would turn on and off at odd hours, and our baby sitters refused to go upstairs. And when the stairs would start to creak late at night, it sounded as though someone was walking down them which made it difficult to sleep. Each member of the family, and even visitors experienced the unexplainable when in that home. My neurons were receiving and sending messages when I saw those doors open, the axons and dentrites were busy communicating with other neurons. Even so, I could not explain how the things I was seeing were physically possible? I can remember how petrified I was during the initial month there. In the following months, my brothers and I became accustomed to the paranormal activity. Our parents never did, and ended up breaking the contract by moving out before it was due to expire. Every human has a blind spot, in a region of the retina. As children, my brothers and I chose to ignore the obvious activity going on around us. In essence the activity became our blind spot. Our society's blind spot today is God, he is still there, we just chose to ignore Him. Stephen Crane could of very well been talking about religion when he penned the following: "Indifference is a militant thing". Armstrong was right, God is not going anywhere, we are.

How someone as delightful and intelligent as Karen Armstrong, who has studied this stuff for years, can miss the essential point of religion astounds me. Religion is based on FEAR--of Death, of the unknown and unknowable--so YES, it will always be with us, and the superstitions, violence, prejudices, and outright nuttiness that has always been its baggage. Methinks a residue of the nun still lurks in Ms Armstrong--or, it's just tough to be in the metaphysics business so long and have to admit that there is no THERE there.

This is the stupidest article on religion I have seen. Armstrong writes about "God" as if he is a known person with known characteristics and policies which everyone agrees on. For example, "46 percent of Americans believe that God should be the source of legislation? Right. What is God's policy on stem cell research? On end of life issues? On homosexual rights? On health care reform? On Afghanistan? How absurd. As far as we know, "God" does not exist.

Karen Armstrong is nun turned into Islamic apologetic. Her history of God omits any reference on paganism, has only one line for Akhenaten, the founder of monotheism. What these believers in God fail to notice is that ever hideous God did not reveal even the true nature of the heliocentric solar system to his messengers. Religions were based on the geocentric model of the universe. Planets( sun included) were Gods, stars were seers. Ultimately Sun became the God-in-chief, and Venus became the Devil. Earlier, Venus was God's wife, the voice of God. Even in Christianity, Venus is the Holy Ghost.

God and Khoda originated from the word Godde which originally meant the leader in ancient Persia. In later days, it meant someone who created himself. I suggest Karen takes a course on the anthropology of God before she writes her next article on God.

This is one article to miss and head straight to the comments section, which has the enlightened opinions and facts.

Besides the FACT that the author seems to misunderstand Nietzsche in the most dreadfull way (when he says "god is dead", he certainly does not say it in a sociological way, but in a philosophical one, which is of course copleteley different and anyone who has read his "Zarathustra" would know this.), she also seems to have a conflict of interest when writing about this subject, as her career has consisted of a defense of religion from theology and sociology, not from psychopatology as would be proper.

Excellent comments by the way... And stop bashing Dawkins...

Religion is supposed to deal with emotions and subjective matters that science which is based upon objectiveness does not consider; science shows us how to do things and religion tells us why we should or should not do them. The use of religion for encouraging violence is in fact a lack of true understanding of religion, just as the destruction of our ecosystem is not because science is evil, but stems from a lack of true science.

Are you suggesting that a bunch of illiterate peasants living in a desert a few thousand years ago are in any position to tell me the WHY to any of my questions? Such an assumption only rings true if a benevolent and truthful god did indeed speak to these people, which we really have no reason to believe.

I like Armstrong's assertion that god doesn't cause violence. It's so literal. Hitchens, Dawkins, et al don't literally blame god for violence as they reject god's existence. They say that religion gives a convenient excuse for violence in many situations. Armstrong's response? God literally doesn't cause violence (unless you count all the times that, if what the holy texts say is true, he did).

I guess she is technically correct. Something that almost certainly doesn't exist cannot directly cause any harm to anyone.

Concord, you fall into the same trap as Armstrong. You, once again, seem to be implying that if only we would accept the "right" sort of religion all would be fine. Please tell me what is the "right" form. To be sure, all religious people view themselves as correct, notwithstanding the thousands of different sects and beliefs. Further, philosophy has been much more adept at explaining or discussing the "why". Religion is, as once might put it, no longer necessary in the "modern" world. Philosophy and science will do just fine :)

Faith can be wilful ignorance, but does not need to be that; if we choose to hide our heads in the sand, instead of looking at facts, we re depriving ourselves of part of our intelligence: the rational mind situated in our left brain. If we reject emotions and feelings, we are depriving ourselves of our affective intelligence: our right brain. A good balance between the two, avoiding to replace one function with the other makes the good citizen..

Concord, my friend, would you please define faith for me?

I completely agree: Faith is tricking yourself into thinking you know more than you know.

Faith is acceptance of something prior to obtaining empirical proof. It is not a difficult concept, mathematicians use it all the time, and generally call it "intuition" in that field. It is quite non-scientific. Essentially, some mathematical proofs cannot be accomplished until one makes the assumption that (....). Once the assumption is made, then the proof can be accomplished, not dependent on the assumption, which verifies that the assumption was correct in the first place.

Faith is like that. Since God is greater than man, and since God chooses to reveal or to hide Himself as He desires, man cannot discover Him on man's terms. God requires that the one that seeks Him believe that He is; if the man does not believe, then God chooses to allow him to seek Him fruitlessly. However, if a man will approach God with the understanding of the relation between the two of them is one of Creator and created ("believing that He is"), then the Creator's nature is to allow the man to approach Him, and He reveals Himself. By accepting what his spirit is already convinced of (by faith) the man obtains that which his mind desires (proof). This way, the pre-eminence of the spirit over the flesh is established in the man.

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'". It is obvious to anyone - atheist or believer - that what we see here - the physical world - is perishing. No one that has ever observed a fire can deny that. But what is spirit is not perishing, and in fact has created this physical world as spawning ground for that which is spirit. That is only understood in the spirit, and that by faith.

If Armstrong is going to get an FP article, I demand that North Korean generals also be allowed to put forth their theories on why their beloved leader, Kim, is better than God and can perform miracles to rid humans of their curse called rationality. Why stop at religious bumpkins, FP? Time to give every passionate lunatic with a half-assed, 'based on a biased hunch', theories a chance to flaunt it on FP.

And Armstrong, they invented a thing called 'citing evidence' right after they decided on needing a god to explain away everything. You might want to start using it as well.

I am that evidence, Eric. I have seen the Lord. There are two kinds of evidence that are acceptable in court; the first is empirical (the bloodstain, the gunshot residue), the second is testimony of a witness, which is what I am.

I am also a professional engineer, an educated man, and peaceful. I have had many conversations with persons such as yourself, and some of them (those that accord mutual respect and do not respond with derision) have become very close friends. (I am not one to cast pearls before swine - mockers need not apply, I have no time for them.) Nonetheless, only two of them have experienced the same as I have, and both of them came to it the same way - by faith. See the reply to the question "what is faith" above.

The particle of evidence you seek, of a Creator that is so Holy, so much higher being than ourselves, cannot be found unless the Creator reveals it. God is Almighty; He has revealed (and reveals) Himself in the manner He has because of His nature. He can be apprehended by faith, once apprehended, the physical evidence becomes quite obvious. But without faith, one cannot see God. You are searching for a diamond in an infinitely large mud puddle; you will not find it that way.

can show you 'gravity' because it is not a physical thing, it is a law that governs that behavior of physical things. You (wisely) believe in it based, as you previously observed, on its effects and its remarkable elegance in explaining those effects.

If your challenge is meant to imply that God and religion fall under a similar evidentiary standard, then I must object. For one thing, many of the effects or phenomena that religion once sought to explain have been ceded to some branch of science. Some of the more ontological questions will probably never be snatched up by science, but to say that a God-based worldview resolves them ignores the fact that there are literally dozens of differing interpretations on the way in which God imparts those effects. This lack of consensus hardly justifies belief the same way the empirically-tested consensus of the scientific community justifies our belief in gravity.

If this was not your implication then I apologize for making assumptions. But I think your general hostility towards science is misguided. Yes, there are many theories and hypotheses that are unproven and for which little evidence exists. This is how science progresses; a scientific law is never a law until it has been thoroughly vetted by experts over a number of years. The difference is that religious dogma, which can never be vetted the way a scientific theory is, shapes the moral and political psychology of a significant portion of the world population. Not only that, but its influence over major decisions is especially strong. It guides people during the most trying crises of their lives. Very few scientists, even those who believe in an as yet unproven theory, will go the extreme of basing their entire lifestyle and ethical responsibilities on it.

I've chosen to get in on this feed because it was the only space where I've found some genuine attempt at dialogue. First, some recent findings on scientists and their religious beliefs. A 1997 survey published by Nature found that 4 out of 10 US scientists believe in God, just over 45% did not believe in God, while 14.5% described themselves as agnostic. Additionally, two Rice sociologists conducted a survey of 1,646 social/natural scientists at 21 elite research US universities in 2005 and found that "most scientists do not perceive there to be a conflict between religion and science." Moreover, [the] authors contend that religious upbringing, the presence of religious practices and peers’ view of religion were significant influencing factors on how scientists viewed religion and science." (source: http://corrul.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=183).

All of this is just to point out that among scientists themselves, there is no overwhelming consensus on belief in God and furthermore, not a few find that their beliefs in science do not conflict with their religious beliefs. Now, I realize that a general theistic belief differs from adherence to one of the world's organized religious traditions, and so I use these stats only to respond to those who have made it seem as if science and religion are inherently at loggerheads because, as we can see, many scientists do not make such conclusions.

Second, I do believe that religious/moral belief and scientific belief should fall under a different "evidentiary standard" because they each have different ends. That is, while science seeks to explain HOW this world works, religious/moral/philosophical schemas seek to explain WHY it works in these ways. Religion cannot and should not be expected to provide answers to such questions as the number of dimensions in the universe or the age of the recently found Ardipithicus just like science cannot and should not be expected to provide answers to such questions as why there is something rather than nothing and what existed before the 'Big Bang.' While I do believe these different fields endeavor to answer different questions, I also believe that the neat boundaries between science and religion/fact and value have successfully been questioned over the past few decades in such fields as the philosophy of science (see Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Lastly, of course, little of this has to do with foreign affairs, the purview of this journal. We should be asking what belief in God has to do with how this country thinks, articulates, and executes foreign policy. In response to this, I echo Ms. Armstrong in saying that we should take God seriously because most of the rest of the world does. While one may not have to agree with a theistic/animistic perspective, one at least should develop familiarity and empathy with it because if we fail to do this, we will repeat many of the foreign policy blunders of the last few decades (failure to foresee the Iranian revolution, to understand the nature of much of the ethnic cleansing in Serbia/Kosovo, and to comprehend the religious dimensions of the recent insurgencies and terror networks in Iraq and Afghanistan, to name a few).

Gentlemen, I thank you for demonstrating that those with differences in such incendiary topics can engage each other in civil discourse.

Thanks for the comments. I am in general agreement with the idea that religion and science can be compatible and that at this point in time there is little overlap in the set of questions each attempts to resolve. I also think there is (or should be) a separation of the way that the inquisitor internalizes the answers to those questions. With science, we can acquire knowledge in the "justified true belief" tradition. I don't think of religious experience as providing the same sort of knowledge. It is more what one might call 'faith' or 'spiritual enlightenment'. For this, a different and perhaps somewhat nebulous evidentiary standard exists. But for answering the type of questions science attempts to answer, the evidentiary standard must be uniform, whether the practitioner is using science or religion or some other tool of inquiry.
*****
And I also agree that approaching faith with curiosity and understanding is of critical importance in international relations. I do feel that Armstrong goes a little beyond that fairly neutral position though.

While I have nothing but respect for your non-belligerent words, i must disagree with you both. Not only in your statistics (because I have numbers that say otherwise), but also in your argument. While it saddens me that FP lets Karen Armstrong, a notorious rewritter of History and NOMA (spine challenged) follower, who has more reasonable critics than hardcore followers comment on foreign policy. But to the point; you state a 97 study of scientists in Nature, which off the bat is absurd because, what defines a scientist? If you go around helping people care for themselves, you aren't a doctor. If you have a degree in biology and you work at a school teaching students, you aren't a scientist. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you believe in a personal one of Judeo-Christian values. Therefore, in '98 Nature did another study on Members of the National Academy of Sciences (the pinnacle of science after the Nobel prize, and on par with Britain's Royal Society). 7% believe in a personal God. Let me put it this way: less than one in ten (1 in 10). They are overwhelmingly of irreligious behavior and belief. The same was found for the FRS. Let's move on to Nobel Prize winners. Benjamin Beit Hallhumi's study on them found out there is 'great irreligiousity' among specifically literature prize winners and the sciences. In a website talking about "Nobel prize-winning Scientific Christians' found 6 were Nobel prize winners, out of hundreds. Further study reveals that 4 are not even prize winners at all. All this is irrevocable truth that Scientist don't believe in God (at least a personal one) and furthermore they dont see it matching up. As for science explaining not being able to explain why while religion/morals/philosophy does, this is highly debatable. For one, religion always enter the minefield called science because they feel it is a threat and if you 'cant beat them, join them' policy of trying to be congruent with science. The difference is that science is evidence based, supported by studies. If the Theory fails, you find one that fits better and try to prove that. So to say that 'error-ridden science' is weak is horribly naive, because that is what gives science its strength. Religion has no evidence, so in the end it is nothing more than unproven talk. But like any argument, the burden of proof is on the group that makes the statement. As for all your questions regarding big bang and all that, i highly recommend you read the science literature, we are getting closer everyday to answering our most basic of questions. Religion is only a way of saying 'im to lazy to find the answer'. I highly recommend Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, and or Christopher Hitchens. Their Rhetoric is much better than mine, obviously.

DREWK - Thanks for your reply. I too have doubts about Ms. Armstrong's tendency to reduce seemingly religiously motivated behavior to non-religious factors. I certainly agree that among many Islamic terrorists today, there are many who use religion as a guise to achieve other more temporal goals, but sometimes she takes this too far. We just cannot get around the fact that religion is a force for good AND evil.

Med - I'm glad you didn't think my conversation with DREWK was 'belligerent' in any way. As for the 1997 Nature survey which found that around 40% of US scientists believe in some God (that language is taken from the survey itself), the 'scientists' surveyed were drawn from a directory of American scientists and furthermore, the individual who carried out this survey, Mr. Edward J. Larson, carried out the survey to which you refer that was done in 1998 so I don't think he just polled any ole' middle school biology teacher. But you are right in pointing to the low number of "greater" scientists in the 1998 survey who reject any belief in a personal God. It would be interesting to have a survey gauge not only belief in a personal God, but a more general theistic perspective. Really, for anyone to have a constructive conversation about any of this, the nebulous concepts of 'religion' and 'god' and 'science' should first be defined. And regarding the other survey from 2005 which I mentioned, I thought it interesting that it found that scientists' religious or non-religious beliefs had a more direct correspondence with their upbringing than anything else like academic training, but the sociologists who performed the survey are still working on that hypothesis so the jury's still out on that.

I also found it interesting that you did not really address the methodological point I made about different types of evidentiary standards for science and religion. That is, you seem to continue to assert that religion should abide by the same standard as science which, of course, I disagree with. The logical positivists (of whom Bertrand Russell was one) made much the same assertion with their 'verification principle' which asserted that any non-analytic statement (that is, a statement where the predicate's meaning is not already contained in the subject - e.g. A bachelor is not married.) has meaning if and only if it can be empirically verified. The only problem with this (and which many logical positivists eventually came to see) is that the 'verification principle' cannot pass its own test, and so in the end is circular in its logic and thus a metaphysical belief (in a very strict sense I grant you, but metaphysical nonetheless). I would argue that you cannot use physical methods involving quantity and measurement to investigate metaphysical questions because by definition, these are different fields. You seem to think that, given enough time, science can do this, but I would beg to differ. I would love to hear any further thoughts you have on the matter. And yes, I have read Bertrand Russell, but I have yet to read Dawkins and Hitchens although I am familiar with their work.

Then I highly recommend 'The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. He, if I perceive correctly, is the standard bearer of the Atheist Cause today. He answers all your questions and points more eloquently than I ever can. But I would like to point out, why shouldn't we apply scientific hypothesis and questioning to religion? We do it with morals (neuroscience, fMRI, debate and logic, evidence), philosophy and so on. Why not with religion? What makes it special? Not to plug the man's book, but seriously Richard Dawkins should be writing a post on FP, not Karen Armstrong (who by the way has no evidence to her shrill speech). Glad to hear from you Sam.

In response to your question about why 'religion,' i.e. metaphysical claims, should not be held to the same standard as an empirically based discipline like science, I guess I would still hold to my point about the fallacy of the 'verification principle.' I certainly believe that such disciplines as cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary biology can be used to shed light on 'religious' behavior and thought processes but in the end, they can never completely explain away 'religious' impulses by reducing them to material/natural causes because once again, they would be overstepping their bounds. I would use the analogy of a watch. Science can certainly tell us what the watch is made of and how it works, but its limited means could never tell us WHY it was made this way and what its final end (purpose) should be. As soon as science begins trying to answer these questions, it has entered into the realm of the metaphysical, i.e. it has become philosophical/theological. Well, thanks for the response. I'll be sure to check out 'The God Delusion.' Be well.

I actually just read your post again and realized that I didn't respond exactly to your question. Yes, I certainly do agree with you that we should question 'religious' claims but the issue then becomes what kind of questions, considering the nature of religious belief, can we fairly ask. Full disclosure: I am a Christian (you probably had already figured out that I was 'religious' in some way). As a Christian, I question my beliefs every day as I learn and experience more and more. When it comes to religious claims, I would agree that some form of rational/logic standard should be applied like the laws of coherence and non-contradiction. As for evidence for religious belief, I would say that, for me at least, the most compelling are the ways in which it helps me to understand the nature of such things as love, evil, and justice (to name just a few things) in ways that a purely naturalistic perspective cannot provide. Regardless, I would agree with you that more members of the world's religious traditions need to engage in a bit more questioning because we will never fully comprehend God's ways. And interestingly enough, I can find resources for such radical questioning and doubt from within my own religious tradition, Christianity (e.g. Job, the Psalms, and yes, even Jesus - "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"). Hopefully, this post does a better job at responding to what you previously wrote.

To your first point, Atheism is not necessarily a product of modern times. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. Thus, any and all humans who never encountered theistic belief would be classified as Atheists. Further, there have been a plethora of atheistic philosophers throughout the ages. Look to Epicurus and Lucretius in the pre-Christian diaspora. Socrates could well be described as an Atheist. The Greeks have a long history of questioning the belief in god. I won't belabor the point but I can provide more examples throughout history if you would like.

Also, our definition of "fundamentalist" might be different. I would state the the Kharrijites, Assassins, Jewish Zealots, along with numerous other examples could well be described as fundamentalists religious movements. All were located in the Pre-Industrial age.

When you refer to Atheistic militancy, what do you mean?

This article is the usual diatribe that is delivered on behalf of religious bias.
You cant have it both ways....
how can you "not read it literally", yet use direct quotes "do unto others" etc...
here are many example of this modern mid ground garbage, where justification for intolerance is masked by the common good delivered from the clergy machines.
Karen is a woman, correct, one wonders if she could or would attempt such a book in less tolerant nations, likely not, as she would not have been to school to start with......

Just be honest about this, and stop protecting the evil that lies within...all religions are controlling machines that feed the blind a diet of lies, distortion, and values to suit any required occasion.

Said the jesuit priest "Show me the boy at 7 years old and i will show you the man"

wow...if this does not reveal the propaganda, and pain...then its too late, you have been coerced already

Karen Armstrong will say anything to sell her books. It's not hard to please more than half of this ignorant world, where "learned concepts" are accepted without reasoning them out....

@VoiceOfReason

Atheism seems to mean different things to different people. I guess I meant more than just a rejection of theism, but and a completely naturalistic view of the universe (and us), without any "supernatural" cause underlying it. I don't know if anyone postulated such a possibility in ancient times, but I would be very surprised if no one did. And obvisously, fundamentalism is not new.

What I got from listening to Karen Armstrong on meanigoflife.tv and by reading the first chapter of her new book (which is available online) was this idea that all this incredible scientific knowledge accumulated since the 16th century is having an effect on these 2 extreme philosophies, and is fueling their radicalism. The most comfortable seat, in my view, is held by the atheists (or naturalists, whatever one wants to call them), because science keeps filling the gaps in our knowledge, and it is not difficult to project that it will keep doing so. Pixel by pixel, a picture is being drawn in front of our eyes, and God does not seem (or apparently needs) to be in it. Religious people who want to cling to their literal and dogmatic views are constantly challenged by this onslaught of knowldege that contradicts them. The mental contorsions they have to resort to is pitiful. Funny at times, but also worrisome when it turns violent.

Personally, I don't adhere to either movements. I think that there is a third way that does accept the concept of a natural, fully (at least to a point) causal world, without rejecting the notion of "mystery", which obviously captivates most of us. And for deeper reasons, I think, than just the fear of death.

Danhue, indeed the industrial revolution, French revolution, and the enlightenment have had major impacts on this world. I agree that all this "new" information, "new" ideas are challenging traditional modes of thought and beliefs. However, I view this as a positive. Religion seems focus on the past (going back to it, describing it, and justifying it) where as the new "secular" mode of thought is the opposite. Peter Berger has a great book that discusses the ideas of Modern vs. Traditionalist.

Also, Atheism can mean different things but it is, in its most used form, merely the lack of belief in god.

You may not like it, but religion is as relevant to FP as economics, history, demographics, etc. What people believe, why the believe it, and the tenets of such belief drastically influence how people act, what decisions they make, and allude to justifications for such actions. Religion is as important, if not more so, than any other element of political discussion and it absolutely has a right to be on this page. In fact, I would like to see a rebuttal to Armstrong's piece. Perhaps by Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens, who she directly attacks in this article.

I am surprised that you published this as it has no place among the many relevant issues you address in your magazine and online. I am disappointed.

Not sure what your comment is in regards to? Possibly alluding to human nature as the cause of conflict. Religion is indeed a tool that is used for slavery, degradation, and violence. However you seem to think that beliefs don't have causal outcomes thus, religion is benign and humans are not. Splitting hairs in my opinion. What we believe about this world and the next influences how we act and behave. Thus our beliefs have real world impacts on our innate human nature.

VOICEOFREASON: You're saying I'm splitting hairs when you're asking people to define words for you and then you split hairs even further by commenting on comments? Someone is missing the bigger picture here.

People say money is evil. But if you spend that money to benefit another person, then the money is good? The point is, it's not the tool that has some inherent good or bad quality to it, it's what's done with it that matters.

A hammer can't just literally get up and build a house for the homeless or bash someone's brains in. You wouldn't put a murderer AND his/her hammer in jail, would you? Ideas can't just jump out of someone's mind and slit somebody's throat or liquidate someone's retirement account. PEOPLE DO.

Is that clear enough for you?

Oh BEES, so what you are saying then is that all ideas are neutral and only people make them bad. Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Racism, Bigotry, Democracy, Freedom, Religion, Metaphysics, Martyrdom, Honor Killings, all those beliefs don't really effect people? I am amazed that you can compare a hammer (physical object) with metaphysical beliefs systems.
Truly there are good ideas and bad ones. Any belief that black people are less than human is a bad idea no matter how people use it; right?

Why is religion necessary to comfort us? And how does religion address the injustice found around the world? And why is it so unsettling to people to think they only get one shot at life on this planet? Isn't that enough? Why the never-ending (and selfish) need to believe one gets to exist in perpetuity ad infinitum among the clouds?

Are abused wives of Christian men supposed to accept that their husbands assault them because it is God's will? Children of Christian Scientists and other sects are supposed to accept their deaths due to preventable childhood diseases because it God's will?
How are the raped and murdered Sudanese comforted by knowing that God's will allows this?

Armstrong makes many fallacious and unsupported arguments in this editorial, but among the most insulting is that "God" (which she equates with religion) is not necessarily bad for women. Of course, she does this while enjoying the ability to choose any church she wants, wear anything she wants in public, pursue her career, drive in public, and say anything she wants. She believes Muslim women have "religious freedom" because some now have the choice of whether or not to wear a burka. Of course, she conveniently ignores the torture and murdering of Islamic women and children by their own families and community members for the "sins" of apostasy, sitting unchaperoned in a car with their fiancees, dressing inappropriately, and trying to get an education. Yes, we need to understand faith in different cultures; but that does not mean I have to accept it or respect the efforts of those in the US who would pass laws based on their religious beliefs that will affect the rest of society.

I agree that defining what we are talking about is a key point in any debate of this type. However, such a task is difficult and I find it improbable that anyone on this page would like to discuss the philosophical or logical definitions of God, Religion, and Atheism. If you are interested then by all means so am I.

Further, the so called "anti-religion" side doesn't "blame" god, per se. If I may be so humble to speak for the "anti-religion" side -or Secular side-, I would point out a few key points. First, the most important first task would be to, as you alluded, to define the concepts of what we are talking about. For I would state that no religious person has given a coherent, non-contradictory definition of God. Thus, the discussion would stop at this point as we are not able to define what we are talking about. Further, the books, doctrines, and words given by God (assuming he exists) are very much open to criticism. However, religion can be shown to be false without ever referring to such theology.

I agree that we all should focus on how to have better relationships between our fellow man. However you seem to fall into the very trap you accuse others of; namely not defining what you mean when you say God.

VOICEOFREASON:My purpose in replying to this discussion thread was not to attempt to convince you or anyone else of the existance of God or defend "Religion." Belief in God requires faith. Man has free will which allows him to choose to have faith or not.

When you state that "that no religious person has given a coherent, non-contradictory definition of God" what I hear is that no one has ever given you a definition of God that overcomes your scepticism. That is your (God-given) right and I have no desire to attempt to convince you or anyone else that you are wrong in your beliefs.

My purpose was to say that you and others are using the word "Religion" to lump all religions together as if they have the same belief structures, doctrines and actions. That's like lumping Dick Cheney and Barack Obama together and saying they have the same beliefs, doctrines and actions because they are "Politicians."

Many of the contributors to this discussion state categorically that "Religion" causes violence, denigrates women and preaches intolerance. I was simply trying to clarify that there is no one "Religion". There are many religions, "Little r" such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Within any religion there are various sects and churches with widely differing interpretations of their texts, statutes and doctrines. Some of these sects have belief structures that can denigrate women or encourage violence against others. I am (Religion) Christian and belong to a church (Episcopalian) that has women and gay bishops and priests and teaches tolerance and respect.

Since you and others want to have evidence and use logic to base decisions, I would encourage you to be more specific in this discussion and not practice guilt by association by lumping all "believers" together.

NTEROG8, I am in complete agreement that we should not lump together all Religions into a single term. We should be more clear about what we are talking about. I would state that the three monotheisms (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) is generally what people are referring to when they say god. If you are not looking for a religious discussion then we don't have to have one.

Humans fear the finality of death and so yearn for transcendence. Belief in skygods is not an essential part of the human condition - unless you've been unfortunate enough to have been so "conditioned." The absurd metaphysics of an afterlife, karma, etc. may be the result of biological wiring in the frightened ego whose job seems to be that of convincing us that we are SO important and significant that we most certainly can NOT come to an end.

Earlier in this thread someone said "accepting any dogma without continuing to ask questions simply makes one cease thinking and therefore cease to be human." I agree - they become one of the "faithful." The "faithful" choose the authority of others. They choose to submit, rather than to understand, to "believe" rather than to think. Faith in supernatural skygods begins as faith in the superiority of others. Those of us who want to stamp out dumb metaphysics in general do not wish to deny the humanity of their fellow beings - we wish to restore their humanity and dignity by releasing them from an irrational "condition" and introducing them to rational thought. But asking the "faithful" to think rationally has always been a "baneful project" because so many prefer to remain ignorant, superstitious peasants like those found in Kosinski's "The Painted Bird."

The one thing, Bunkhabit, I can say with certainty about anything is that I don't know. I am, however, open to exploration and putting myself in others' shoes. I hold opinions, of course, and have intimations. I am pretty sure I know the difference between right and wrong, but my mind is not closed. I do not know enough to want to save anyone from anything they fervently believe or cure them any conviction they might hold, let alone any they feel gives meaning to their lives. That would be childish and the height of impudence and the sort of thing that led to Socrates having to take hemlock.

I can't speak for all the dissenting commentators here, but I can say that dismissive scorn for religion doesn't necessarily follow from disagreement with Armstrong's thesis. I agree that there is something culturally-ingrained about religion and it may be an essential, permanent part of what it means to be human. I also dont think that the influence of religion on human affairs is by necessity a bad one. But these beliefs are no logical impediment to me taking issue with the article. Her overall thesis is somewhat vague and so malleable that it's hard to mount a really thorough assault on it as a whole. What one can poke holes in are her specific assertions, which demonstrate a flimsy level of scholarship. Perhaps she is more thorough in her book (or perhaps not), but the way this article is written demonstrates a pretty callous disregard for facts that run contrary to her case as well as a tendency to inflate the significance of facts that support it.

If religion and religiosity are here to stay, it probably doesn't do much good for us to angrily label them tools of the ignorant, of oppression and intolerance, of war and barbarism. It's not inconceivable that religion can at some point in the future peacefully co-exist with all the things it is purported to have been the enemy of throughout history. But it also does no good for us to whitewash its past and ignore the very real retarding effect it has had on various spheres of life. An honest, dispassionate look at its influence is what is needed, and I fear Armstrong, in her zeal to rebut the so-called "so-called New Atheists", has fallen short of this ideal.

Ah, yes, "I'm certain that I don't know." Yawn...

Take the easy way out:
Say "I don't know." Treat arbitrary claims as proper to consider, discuss, evaluate - then regretfully says, "I don't know," instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand. Equate the groundless and the proved. Demand proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the positive. Miscalculate. Avoid any position that will antagonize anybody. Convince yourself that not taking any stand is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that this view is one of the weakest stands there can be.

What grounds our beliefs in reality are the REASONS we have for them - like reason and evidence. Rejecting ignorant superstitions doesn't necessarily require certainty. But there comes a point beyond which doubt, although possible, is no longer reasonable.

Are you uncertain as to the existence of a tooth fairy as well? Perhaps the belief of countless children cause you to reconsider and say, "I don't know..."

Yawn...

BUNKHABIT: Your desire to dismiss everyone who has any belief in a Supreme Being as superstitious peasants is as irrational and illogical as the "dumb metaphysics" you rail against.

It is a "prejudice". See Wikipedia: A prejudice is a preconceived belief, opinion or judgment especially toward a group of people characterized by their race, social class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age or religion. Also, it means a priori beliefs (without knowledge of the facts) and includes "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."[1] Although positive and negative prejudice both exist, when used negatively, "prejudice" implies fear and antipathy toward such a group.

You demonstrate clear a priori beliefs since you are dismissive of all religious believers without knowing or understanding their belief structures. You also show "an unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."

Your position seems to be that it is impossible for any being to exist that is superior to you. Therfore, no one could ever produce any argument or evidence that would change your mind.

Others with more open minds have chosen to study both the agnostic and religious belief structures and have come to what it to them a logical conclusion. While it is impossible to prove or disprove the existance of God there is plenty of evidence that believing in God has benefit to a person's emotional health. I spent thirty years of my life as an agnostic until I realized that it was my irrational prejudices against church authority that kept me from being open to God. Once I realized that I could experience a relationship with God without submitting to the authority of any church I was free to find that relationship.

I do not believe in God because I fear death. I believe in God because that belief allows me to get beyond myself and see that an ego-driven life alone is not worth living.

Anthony,

I tried to get the December 23, 1999 of The Economist, but it was too small in order to show any details such a a headline.
But it did print in its obit section on the death of God.

Yes, the millennium edition of The Economist had an obituary of God (which actually left open the question of whether or not he was dead). But it wasn't the cover story, and the article which Ms Armstrong was surely thinking of is the cover story of Time magazine's issue of 8th April 1966: "Is God dead?"

I'm glad you enjoyed the comments. I agree completely!

When Lagrange was presenting his new celestial models to Napoleon, Napoleon supposedly asked our famous physicist: Where is God in your model?

Lagrange replied: It works well enough without that assumption. =)

I don't mean for this to be an argument, just thought you may find it interesting.

Of course not all belief systems are equal. It seems a worthy pursuit to research the social sciences as much as possible in order to develop policies to balance freedom, equality, and order in society. It is actually rather easy to dismiss the vast majority of religions under this criteria considering their belief in faith being antithetical to the pursuit of science. While I am happy that many people have embraced modernized religion it is simply ignorant to claim that the vast majority of humans in the world believe in the vague and simple "First Cause" sort of God of academic theologians. The fact is that upwards of 80% of Americans really don't think evolution by natural selection is the truth of things. While the blame for this can go around, I think we all know who is at the top of the list.

It is great that some religions promote social benefits but I would question how well they do this and how much of what they really promote is beneficial to society. It is also interesting to question how much of this human solidarity actually has nothing to do with belief in the supernatural and everything to do with people simply being part of a community. One could also question the righteousness of someone's motives if they really ARE working to benefit society purely because of their belief in supernatural reward and punishment ...

QUELLIUS: Just because you can find a quote to support your prejudice doesn't make it so. Steven Weinberg's statement that "to get good people to do bad things you need religion" is false.

I served an a combat interrogator in Viet Nam for 16 months. Neither I nor any of those I worked with used any form of physical torture or abuse on the prisoners we interrogated.

After 9/11, all it took for good people to do bad things was some flimsy legal arguments by some sycophantic lawyers and Dick Cheney's encourageement. U.S. interrogators (some religious, some not) were more than willing to use torture. Religion was not a factor in this case. Fear and a desitre for revenge was all that was needed.

I find this interesting. I used this quote because I think it is a good point but no, I don't claim that religion is the sole force of getting good people to do bad things. Psychological disorders can this this too, as well as other delusions or illusions. If you read my whole post you might have also noticed my commentary on other atheists noting that religion is not the source of all cruelty and I would have thought you'd see that is true here as well. Is this your only criticism of my post? My quote which includes some exaggeration?

I simply would disagree that these things are bad in the same sense. In the sense of the quote I believe it is referring to evil, cruelty for it's own sake. Torture is essentially a more personal example of collateral damage in war (which we are clearly okay with given our lack of perfect weaponry) and so I don't think it is actually really bad in many senses of the word at all. Thanks for the comment though.

I am a Muslim but not a Mullah. I had my doubts about truthfulness of all this dogma around me. I studied things objectively and found that 90% of religion around us is not revealed but interpreted by humans which of course may be wrong or suiting their desires. 10% in Quran is generally nothing but insistence for quest to learn and understand. No dogma comes in Qur'an but in commentaries and fictitious Ahadith.

I disagree with your two statements. Islam compels its followers to live dangerously emotional lives and nostalgia. This may be the concept of your nearby Mullah but not religion.

Kareen For God's (Oh sorry, for xxx) sake

Don't blame her for bloodshed at least. Be rational. You are worried that due to her eloquence, she might make some people believe on God. Listen, i said somewhere else as well. Humans like any other species are pugnacious characters. They will continue to shed blood no matter they are Zindiq, apostate or religious.

If you have an objective view of this, then you must realize that what you are saying - that you would remove religion from politics - makes no sense. Our nation was not founded exclusive of religion; belief and faith in God are integral to the Constitution and the principles of it. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...that man is endowed by his Creator..." This speaks of "truths", which are a religious concept, rather than facts, which are scientific, and "Creator" which is completely exclusive to the area of religion. And, being objective, you know that there are thousands of examples of this.

Removal of God from this nation - and I mean the Judeo-Christian God - is equivalent to removing the breath from a body. Everything is still there, there is no real reason that the body cannot continue to operate - but it is dead. Instead of getting off the table, the body rots. When God leaves the nation, the nation dies. It is still there, but the stench really gets to you after a while.

Which religion stops you from search of Truth. You are probably working on heresy and never studied religion yourself. Islam asks you to think all the time about the creation of universe and its Raison d'être.

And why foreign policy should not write this article? These days the foreign policy is increasingly relying upon religion from Israel to Saudi Arabia.

Its freedom of speech which is otherwise so dear to you in Islamic countries but you do not want it on FP.

Religions are built upon man-made, man-centered concepts that man creates to articulate his understanding of what God has ordained. These are "dogma" when they are "officially" articulated. In this, you are correct.

But God is not dogma. God is, He is transcendent, He is not limited to man's comprehension, He is higher above man than the stars are above the atmosphere. When a man seeks that God, he becomes quite irreligious, and when he encounters God's Love, he ceases to war with his neighbor, regardless of his neighbor's beliefs. He does not become a doormat, but he becomes a fierce and potent power for good.

But man does not seek God when he is self-sufficient. The religion that is, and has always been, associated with war, fighting, killing, zealots, and things evil, is that religion that places God in a place that He is not. It places God in a place where He can be manipulated, coerced, or even comprehended. And God is not there. So the man blows himself up in an attempt to become more than he is - he seeks to become god. He fails.

If you are a religious zealot and seek violence toward your fellow man, then you are simply wrong. For this reason, we know that the current batch of Islam extremists (like the Crusaders of yesteryear), anti-Zionists, terrorists, or anyone who engages in such things are not of God, they are simply pawns of the damned, deluded, and ignorant.

May be you are right. This is one point of view

Atheism requires great faith, and great rebellion. No rational person that considers who God is, or who He is claimed to be, could come to the conclusion that God has an obligation or some requirement on Him to reveal Himself to a man - and particularly to a man that is bent on proving He does not exist! God is complete in Himself, He does not require man.

That thought is infuriating to a man that desires to elevate himself to godhood, which is the position of an atheist. No atheist (except perhaps Barack Hussein Obama) believes himself to be omniscient or omnipotent (and Barack is getting a lesson there), but all of them desire to think of themselves as the highest, most powerful being in the universe that they control. That is the natural desire of man. Angry atheism, which you have commented about, comes about when the evidence of a God who is greater begins to infiltrate. The atheist can do nothing about it, he is helpless. That helplessness, that weakness, is the primary emotion. Anger, as it always is, is secondary.

What great faith is required to be an atheist! To take as true that there is no God, when by definition, God could not be apprehended unless He chooses to reveal Himself. What arrogance, to maintain such a position! What foolishness, to live a life in hopes that this is all there is, and that when you die, you cease to exist! It is like jumping off the top of a tall building, in hopes that air is all there is, and there is no real cement at the bottom. For a while, even for a lifetime, you can maintain this, but in the end, you will discover that God is there - and although you depended on Russell's teapot to say He wasn't, He isn't buying that argument. And how tragic, how sad, since all it would take to apprehend God - because of His nature, not your action - is to humble yourself before Him and seek Him with a whole heart.

He would do the work, it is His nature to answer your call, when you call in broken humility. But if you continue to live in self-serving pride, being the captain of your own ship, then in the end, you will pilot it to destruction.

I looked at your website, and saw that this person gave up his faith and embraced socialism. This is such a sad commentary on man. I am sure that Will Durant was a decent man, and his works are undoubtedly daunting, but he was writing from blindness about how dark the world is.

The saddest thing for a person that knows God is seeing their children do not. I am also sure that Mr. Durant's mother wept for her son, knowing him to be lost, and now from heaven remembers him no more. His works are all about second best, his philosophy is the salvation of man by man, and this is folly in the name of wisdom. There is an earthly wisdom that is prevalent on CFR, but it is foolishness to God. Socialism walks in the way of man's wisdom. On the outside, it seems like the redemption of man by man. The only problem is, the heart of man is desperately wicked above all things, who can know it?

I am saddened in my heart that you have taken this man's perspective to heart, even if he was your grandfather. As you stumble on your way, remember, there is a light, even if you have never seen it.

I would agree with everything you said, except one thing - not all people who believe in God feel compelled to push their beliefs to the point of intolerance. I believe in God. I am simply a witness. If you choose to not believe in God, that is fine with me, because the commandment to me is to be a witness. God has taken it upon Himself to convict you. In fact, if you look at it carefully, He forbids me to try to convict you.

I am simply told to be ready to give answer to anyone who asks about the hope in me. That means, you need to ask, first.

You don't ask, I don't tell. Easy enough?

The religion? Christianity. And don't I know how much it has been perverted by the pushy.

Markustee, what you say sounds great. But those forcefully fighting to impose their religious views on education, morality, science, politics etc. are not just "witnesses". They are using all their power to impose their views on everyone at any cost. And I am not even talking about Islam.

Who, from inside christianity is denouncing them?