Wow! Slave on his business card!  It should have read MSOG: mental slave of god.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It’s painfully clear that Christopher Hitchens and Glenn Beck make their money the same way: their schtick is to exploit our human tendency toward bigotry and paranoia by suggestively drawing personal and societal connections that have scary implications. A person has got to make a living I guess. Yes, there’s a connection between the murders committed by Nidal Malik Hasan’s and his Muslim faith. And what else? Nothing. He’s “just saying”.

These demagogues are just cherry picking facts and connections. They provide no meaningful context with which to evaluate the significance of these connections. For instance, for context, do people become violent radicals without religion? Why, yes they do. All the time.

In April 1995, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people. The connection between the action of Timothy McVeigh and his Libertarianism was no less clear and meaningful than is the connection between Nidal Hasan and his Islamism. Timothy McVeigh claimed to be simply following “the beliefs of the Founding Fathers”  and he looked to their words and those written in the U.S. Constitution for justification.

According to Timothy McVeigh, “those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly”. Unlike us “moderate” Americans, Timothy McVeigh simply had the strength to act on those principles in defense of America. Modern Constitutional Reconstructionists, Libertarians, and Conservative revolutionaries, like McVeigh and others, can find plenty of justification to support their cause and to use violence as a means to defend liberty and the U.S. constiution against a tyrannical government.

Point being, Timothy McVeigh and Nidal Malik Hasan are inflicted by the same disease, and they do not have reigion in common.

Religion can be a problem. Yes. It certainly seems to be an especially susceptible carrier of a societal disease. But, to diagnose religion in general, and Islam specifically, as an underlying cause of that violent societal disease, as Hitches appears to do, is I think treating the symptom, not the disease. Worse, the Hitchens/Beck approach to whooping up the mob is I think more likely to aggravate the disease, than it is to help treat it. No, not all approaches to dealing with the problems of religion are necessarily helpful.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

How sad that an article pointing out the obvious needs to be written, and not only that it is considered highly controversial.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Lets ask ourselves and reflect upon how much crime is committed by a Darwinism approach to the meaning of life that preaches as fact the survival of the fittest that fits the capitalist ideology the very best.

Capitalism like communism must self-destruct as they both exploit people and both are not based in a high level of awareness of reality. Isn’t it ironic that capitalism America style is being bailed out by that “evil empire” called communist china? Two birds of the same feathers? Both exist in part due to the dualistic mentality of most humans.

Our prisons are overflowing with those that committed crimes for drugs due to this capitalist materialistic agenda and religious dogma taught to children and adults that they may reside in hell for eternity and the judgment thing and don’t forget free will.

Now as I have stated rather I suspect very arrogantly which I apologize we must stand between if possible these two religions of Darwinism and pious religious fundamentalism with all of its man made dogma and scientism taught as truths to see the self destruction inherit in both.

Few will understand my words but to the credit of this blog so far I have not been banned yet. Many I am sure want to ban me but so far it has not occurred.

My words are harsh and I am working on that but I suspect not fast enough to suit most on this blog. It is not so much what we say but how we say it and my way of saying it sucks for lack of a better term. I am still a work in progress as we all are to some degree.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher:
Your comments here are rude and inconsiderate of reders.  This is a post about the Fort Hood incident and an article by Hitchens - your comments are inapposite.
You have ample oppoprtunity in the forums section of this site to say whatever it is you’re trying to say, ad infinitum.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“That so much . . . suffering can be directly attributed to religion - to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious taboos, and religious diversions of scarce resources - is what makes the honest criticism of religious faith a moral and intellectual necessity.” Sam Harris

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think Tim McVeigh suffered from something that is a true problem—he believed that he was SO RIGHT about something that he felt JUSTIFIED in killing men, women, children and babies. The problem I see with religion is that it takes people who already feel their right, gives them something to feel right ABOUT and then it is easier to justify killing people that don’t agree with you. Tim might not have had a religious motivation, and there are probably other examples one can use, but it doesn’t negate the fact that religion is a great big shield the righteous can hide behind and justify their actions. It is dangerous. That is what Mr. Harris and Mr. Hitchens are talking about.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“re: “The problem I see with religion is that it takes people who already feel their right, gives them something to feel right ABOUT and then it is easier to justify killing people that don’t agree with you. “

Majority of One, non-religious movements appear to be no different. People find a cause to die and kill for just the same. McVeigh felt right *about* the cause he was fighting for, right to the end. The non-religious can be equally unshakable in their belief. Religion does not appear to be a special case. Treating it as such, seems to me to be dangerous, or at least, counterproductive.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Of course religion should be seen and treated as a specal case of human violence. 

Non-religious movements are quite different because the cause of their violence differs from movement to movement, and their violence is sporadic.  Religious violence, however, has been and remains in an unbroken chain of violence throughout history.  There is no comparable form of human violence in duration, scope, and uniqueness of purpose.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

re: “There is no comparable form of human violence in duration, scope, and uniqueness of purpose.”

On the contrary, there’s little or no meaningful difference between human violence committed in the name of religious allegiances and that committed in the name of national, tribal, ideological, racial, and other types of allegiances.

But I’m open to evidence. What’s the meaningful difference between McVeigh and Hasan that distinguishes religion for special treatment? For instance, why is it considered defensible to conclude that there’s a meaningful connection between Islamism and violence and not similarly conclude that there’s a meaningful connection between Americanism and violence?

What are the meaningful differences in scope and “uniqueness of purpose” between the violence committed by the Islamic Empire vs that committed by the Roman Empire or the Nazis,  that should distinguish religion for special treatment?

Religion is a problem because it institutionalizes false claims about the nature of the world.  Leave it at that.  There’s no evidence to support these other wild claims about religion in general.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.