Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com Columnist
Does religion make people better or worse
by Dennis Prager
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



I have devoted much of my life to arguing that religion is the finest vehicle for individuals and societies to become decent, good, moral (you choose the term you prefer). For example, in 2005, I devoted 24 columns to making the case for Judeo-Christian values as the finest system of values ever devised.

However, this advocacy of religion comes with two caveats.

First, the claimed superiority of Judeo-Christian values in no way means that all believing Jews and Christians are good people, let alone better than all other people. There have always been and there are today morally superior individuals in every religion. And there are morally superior individuals among atheists and people of no organized religion.

Second, there is no religion that has not made, or at least enabled, some of its adherents to be morally worse than they would have been had they not adopted that religion.

So our question is not whether there are good or bad people in every religion. The question is whether any given religion is likely to make one who believes in it a better or worse person than he would have been had he not believed in that religion.

Let's begin with my religion, Judaism. I recall a young man who attended a Jewish institute I used to direct. When he first arrived at the institute, he was a particularly kind and nonjudgmental individual -- and completely secular. After his month-long immersion in studying and living Judaism, he decided to become a fully practicing Jew. When I met him a year later he was actually less kind and was aggressively judgmental of the religiosity of fellow Jews, including me and others who had brought him to Judaism. In one year he had become in his eyes holier than the teachers who brought him to religion in the first place.

Now, of course, there are teachings in Judaism that, if honored (such as the Prophet Micah's admonition to "walk humbly with your God"), would have prevented him from becoming sanctimonious. But the religion's emphasis on legal observance enabled him to count the number of laws fellow Jews did not observe and judge them accordingly.

One major benefit of Judaism's being law-based is that it can provide an individual with a way to regularly ascertain right from wrong, to provide ethical rules on a daily basis. It can move him to visit the sick when he would rather be at home watching television, to resist gossiping, to give more charity than he otherwise would, to show honor to parents who may not deserve it, and so much more. But it can also lead him to judge fellow Jews by their level of ritual observance, to substitute law worship for God worship, and can lead a Jew to retreat from almost any social interaction with the non-Jewish world.

Within Christianity, faith in Jesus Christ can lead one to live a life of extraordinary loving kindness and self-sacrifice in order to emulate Jesus, whom the Christian regards as his Lord and Savior. It can also, and has, led Christians to place so much emphasis on proper faith as to neglect equal emphasis on proper behavior, to hunt down heretics, to judge other people by their faith rather than by their decency (as in Europe's wars and killing over theology). It can lead to an almost unique support for the Jewish people -- as among American evangelical and other conservative Christians -- and it has also led to the most prolonged hatred of the Jews for spurning and killing Christ among Christians in Europe.

Nearly 2,000 years of Christian domination of Europe did not prevent most Europeans from doing nothing to protest, let alone rescue Jews from, the Nazi genocide. On the other hand, the relative handful of European Jews who were saved were rescued disproportionately by religious Christians. I once asked California State University Professor Samuel Oliner -- an authority on altruism and on rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust, and himself a Jew who was rescued by non-Jews -- knowing all he does now, on whose door would he knock if he wanted to be saved from the Nazis during the Holocaust -- a doctor, a professor, a lawyer or a priest. He answered that there was no question that it would have been the priest.

The third monotheistic faith is Islam. There are many millions of decent and kind Muslims in the world. But there are also at least a hundred million Muslims (i.e., 10 percent) who support killing innocents in the name of Allah and Islam. And there are more than that who believe in the ideal of using force to spread Islam throughout the world.

So the question is this: How many kind and decent Muslims are kind and decent because of Islam, and how many evil Muslims are evil because of Islam?

I do not claim to have an answer. I only claim that the question is a legitimate one that all the decent Muslims need to answer. The evil ones repeatedly tell us how Islam is the source of their support for murder and torture. We need to know from the good ones how Islam has made them good.

So far we have only heard from one side.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
scooternyc
Christians are no more moral than anyone. I know plenty of better athiests than myself and I'm a christian. Sorry but it seems the bible clearly states that they should all just recognize that fact fully and look to one who is love. Being a better person is not an obligation or automatic act but aprivilidge to give away the love yu have been given. That is why I see Christ as God coming done to us to completley give, serve, love, die for all our crap and many other faiths simply working or trying to move up to become more holy. God knows we're not holy and never will be. He came to us. We can not get to Him. Our so called "Good" deeds mean nothing to a perfectly moral being, regardless off intentions or motives because they are bound to be questionable. Some faiths merely wish to disolve this problem by escaping from the very nature and fabric of the world. Does it work? Probably. Does it make it a better person? I'm not sure. I think I may be a better person by secluding myself from the temptations and problems everyday life and troubling people. How can one love when one is not close enough to those may hurt them deeply. Of course I'm speaking of many Eastern Faiths.
I beleive we're all deeply self-centered creatures who want to sit on our own throne with no one interfering in our own thoughts of what is right or wrong. This is certainly true in Western culture. If you are a "who's to say" relativst like scooternyc, it may be right at the time for me to rape and murder your mother. It may seem quite nice and good at the time for me to do so. I may enjoy it greatly and it may help society afeter I rob her and feed some people and sell all she owns to give to the less fortunate. Does that make it good or right? How can you say no without merely appeally to tour own subjective feeling which means very lttle to anyone else. Without any outside reference point there is little appeal or argument you could make to say that it is wrong. I have yet to here a coherant argument that states that a moral world should, or could exist without a moral fiber within or a ethical compass without. This means a transcendant Authority. And every evolutionary explanation seems almost laughable in this regard. It takes much more faith to beleive in that we developed religion and morality because we became so smart we needed to dupe ourselves into falshoods. We have simple evolved past the point of knowing what the hell is going on. Not so much progress in my opinion. So the simple conclusion must be to continue to bow down to humanity's almighty reason and worship the Academies of human thought. The new "church" of the 21st century to tell us all the truth. And that is that we must pay these institution (priests,cathederals,popes,etc.), that becoming a better person, which use to mean knowing the truth and yourself doesn't matter. It all leads to one. It all leads to the same hill. Give us all your money and we'll teach you all how to have the strongest convictions about nothing at all. You will be knothing, but, and here is the important thing, you will feel like you're a better person That seems to have gotten us this far yes? Atomic Weapons and mass genocide and all...that all happened because people thought they knew the truth. You will not. You are smarter than that. We have learned. Religion/Academics or not humanity will use every means to gain power over each other including using the very peacefulful promotions of religious piety or socialistic and scholastic secularity. With that I think all "religion" (we still have yet to define the term) insits is the nature and problem of mankind. Instead of ignoring it, it seeks a solution and offers some very profound answers. Not perfect, nor are they always noble and often sometime quite despicable yet non the less solutions that have brought hospitals, universities, orphanages, shelters and food for the hungry. The church supported slavery and led to its abolution. Much to think about. Nothing to outright dismiss. There are too many misconceptions about the Bible and what it means to be a Christian to use simpley as smokescreens to disregard the message of self-sacrificial love and forgiveness that is the centrality of he message. Don't let some "ignorant" Christian or christians give you the excuse to throw "religion" with it's many faults out with the message of hope grounded on solid human objective evidence found.
If so our world seems to be simply what each society or culture deems lawful, even if it is fathers murdering their young duaghters for getting raped and dishonoring their family. That is a very slippry moral slope to go down.
Finally this, God doesn't send people to hell, or scare people by hell. People are scared by hell because they suscpect it might be real and most, including yourself perhaps wouldn't mind if some people spent time there (Hitler etc.). Many people want ohers, after having seen the many post about murders, to go to hell. The God of the Bible does not! He is Love, the definition of self-sacrificial love, which Christ showed on the cross. This Love can never be repaid and can never be earned by any of our paltry good works. It is this love that creates the desire to serve out of gratitude and not to gain Gods exceptance by good deeds. Yet the Bible clearly states that God is "Just" as well. He will certainly let each individual peson, based on what he knows, choose. Either to be with God or not to be with God. It's called freedom. The greatest gift we have. All we know about hell is that it is seperation from that Love of God for all eternity. We have enough knowledge to make a chose based on God's Love for us being provided on the cross. Sorry it's supernatural., but if you can beleive in God it's not that much of a stretch. Outside of that no one knows and no one knows who is going to "heaven" or "hell". Including many so-called "Christians. That fact is that there will be a newearth as well.

True Religions
Always imrpove people. But since there are only two (Christianity and Judasim) it gets folks confused.

Hinduism and Buddhsim are Paganism.

Islam is an Evil Ideology and world wide criminal conspiracy.

All the rest are pagans.


Getting back to the real question.
"The question is whether any given religion is likely to make one who believes in it a better or worse person than he would have been had he not believed in that religion."

Unfortunately after posing the real question, the article strays into obervations on how religious people may or may not have behaved. This is really of little value in answering it. We cannot even speculate on how a declared religious individual would act without his association, or alternately a non-religious one would act by adhering to one. The subject as treated will have to remain rethorical.

It would be more valid, though possibly braver as well, to approach the issue from another angle, albeit an agnostic one. The Romans had a concept they called "virtue" which was defined as the proper, or desirable way for a man in their society to behave. (I am sorry, but am not too sure about the female counterpart.) Though it was closely tied in with family-taught values and the obligations of citizenship, it was still somewhat universal in their way of thinking. A barbarian could be virtuous, and by the same token a Roman citizen could lack this quality.

The Roman pantheon may have included deities more or less associated with many of the "virtuous" components, but belief or devotion to them was by no means required. An individual may have been rewarded for his virtuous behavior or punished for his lack thereof independently of what he may or may not have believed, for lack of a better word, spiritually. When Christianity supplants the Roman culture, "grace" replaces "virtue" and "salvation" in another, this time eternal and spiritual world, becomes the reward. Good citizenship is no longer of primary importance since it is in the discredited sphere of the City of Man and not in the City of God.

Behavior dictated by a magical system incorporating after death rewards or punishment often masks the innate goodness or evil of individuals; call it their "social conscience." Though Roman behaviour may not be totally acceptable to most of us today, thanks in part to the Judeo-Cristian ethic referred to, most of our Western civilization yet remains more Roman than either Judaic or Christian. Keep in mind that our witchhunts, Children's Crusade, drawing and quartering of political enemies, attempts to find both the philosopher's stone and fountain of youth, belief in dragons etc. would have struck most Romans as being absurd if not outright ridicolous.

How religious people act at any given time is often determined by the political and economic objectives of their own particular belief base and how it stands in the pecking order in any given community or even world-wide. The inherent dangers of any theocracy in this respect are
monumental. Once a religion achieves or strived for monopoly, it steers to the end of its own beauracracy, privileged members. etc. and alters the magical compass to suit that purpose.

http://almagz.blogspot.com

role of religion
Let's have a scale for "level of involvment" from 1 to 10 for each major faith...now, let's have a scale of 1 to 10 for "most likely to behead you". Now, what do you think which religion will correspond with the beheading scale? Exactly! Case-in-point: keep the barrel oiled and the ammo dry; they will not stop from trying to convert us (we all know what the other option is) and h*ll freezes over before I'll be fasting for a month!
An other thing: what is up with the 72 virgins anyway??? who needs that kind of hassle? maybe 10...and about 50 normal girls with some experience...and yes, 12 sluts...sorry, but eternity is a long time.

Religion doesn't do anything, God does
“The Law of the Gospel,” however, “proceeds to reform the heart. The root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure.”
#1968 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church



Dennis is asking the wrong question. “Religion” doesn’t or couldn’t make anyone good or bad anymore than let’s say, eating pancakes for breakfast every day could. God and God alone enables people to be and do good. ALL good things come from God, starting with the grace for faith to truly believe FROM THE HEART, NOT THE HEAD. We can “say” we are anything, but without a “heart transformation”, we are nothing.

The “Good News” however, is that 2000 years ago, God in His great mercy took pity on us and sent us His son, Jesus Christ. Jesus, the Way, the Truth, and the Light. We are all free to accept and reject. For those who accept, we have been told all there is to know of God, for those who have seen Jesus have seen the Father.

Jesus came to transform our hearts, so we could love more, love like HE loves. He Himself is Love and Truth. At the Sermon on the Mount, he gave/taught us what we need to do to transform, making clear not to abolish the old but to FULLFILL. Consequently, we can always know how conformed we are to God/Christ by the extent that we “still need the laws.” If we TRULY loved as Christ taught us, we wouldn’t need ANY laws anymore than those who love their kids need a “law” to well, love their kids. St. Augustine used to say, “JUST LOVE (as Jesus taught us to love), and then do whatever you want. The point of course, if we TRULY KNOW AND LOVE GOD, it’s not possible to act out of accordance with God. That said, we need laws in place to confirm sin (right and wrong), to avoid a “relative” world, and, even for the best, as an “emergency back up generator”, like a cold snowy morning when even the best Catholic might want to roll back over in a warm bed, rather than “just this once miss Mass.”

FREEDOM FROM THE LAW---that’s more of the Good News of Jesus Christ. The goal is to love SO much we don’t need rules to live as Christ/God desires. The whole meaning of life for a Christian is to be “one with God”, which is nothing less than heaven/salvation. If we “get that” here on earth, “eyes have not seen, and the human mind can not possibly imagine”, the awesomeness that awaits us for eternity!




NemoParticularis
"I've already seen the document. It's been trotted out like a proof-text by every Mohammedan apologist for the past 5 years. If you added together all the names and then assumed all the "families" referred to as attending various rallies on or after Sept. 11 consisted of at least 10 people, you'd barely hit the number of people who died in the WTC attack."

This document is not for you, sir, it's for "Just a thought" who asked for "one" condemnation by "clerk," and this document has so many of the big Muslim clerks; and I don't understand why would you want every single Muslim's thoughts be put into a document such as that!

"Moreover, most of the folks doing the condemning did so from the comfort, freedom and relative safety of the U.S., Canada or Europe."

So many of the names mentioned in that paper are Islamic leaders from the Middle East; but you hear what you wanna hear!! Starting from the Islamic leadership of Iran to Morocco, all condemned it...

"I'd be willing to bet that the statements quoted from others in predominately Mohammedan countries were likely lifted from much broader statements in which they went on to attack the West, Christianity and, of course, the dreaded "Zionist entity." "

That's because you didn't read the statements!!

"What has the "moderate" Mohammedan world done LATELY? There have plenty of very bloody terrorist attacks between 2001 and now. Where are the statements of outrage? Where are the rallies of protest against these so-called traitors to true Islam? Hmmmmm?"

Give me a break for this!! Most of the terror was raged against Muslims themselves, Iraq, Jordon, Egypt; Condemnation from all over the Islamic World on the news... There have been so many campaigns to hunt terrorists, like this http://www.imsaudi.com/ and http://anti-erhab.com/; go see the hundreds of Islamic leaders condemning the terrorism against Christians, Jews, and Muslims; google translate it, and see religious Acts against it..

"Let's go further. Let's say that just one-half of one percent of all Mohammedans worldwide are active jihadists or passive supporters of jihad. That leaves a total of 5 MILLION dedicated, world-conquering, Jew-hating, America-loathing, Musselmen scattered around the globe."

This 5 million is against Muslims too; and we're fighting them with out mind, heart, and power...

"And yet, one looks and listens in vain for the massive rallies and protests. That's because they aren't there. And don't blame it on repressive governments. "

I'll give you everything I own if you would protest Saudi Govt!! Are you out of your mind?

"Yet, let a sane voice argue for profiling Mohammedans at the airport and before you know it, CAIR and every other jihadist front-group is caterwauling that we are about to bring back the WW2 internment centers."

I have been profiled in several airports; I understand its importance, yet It's really bad when they asked my female friend to take off her clothes infront of everybody else..

"Enough already, Ebrahim (or whatever your real name is). Stop peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. Nobody but a fool, a naif, a liberal, the Democrat party leadership or a fellow "moderate" Mohammedan frontman such as yourself would believe the crap you are peddaling. "

Well, that's because you've an Idea and wants it through... Throughout your replies i find nothing but this tone, you don't wanna listen, read, or understand; you want everybody to say what you say?

"You'll get a much nicer reception at DailyKos or HuffPo, where the Bush-loathing, America-hating, anti-Semitic moonbats will roll out the red carpet for you."

Well, I'm not a bush-loathing person, I personally liked many of his stances... and this "get out of here, wink wink" is not gonna stop me from saying my opinion

catattack
"Number of U.N. Security Council resolutions on the Middle East between 1948 and 1991: 175
Number of these resolutions against Israel: 97
Number of these resolutions against an Arab state: 4
Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel: 322"

Is this "the case for Arabs?" This many resolutions against Israel is 97, all-vetoed-by-the-US, wonder why?? The UN Security council is consisted of countries from all over the world, who recognize Israel too; wonder why they don't agree with you? Is because there is something wronge with either you or them... Did you get out of your box to check if it's you who might be wronge?

Once saved always...???
Gem writes: "Hmmm... Are you saying that a person who has once accepted Christ cannot at some point decide to turn away and reject his salvation?"

This is what I am saying: Once baptized, a person becomes part of the Mystical Body of Christ- the Church - and while alive here on earth is part of what is referred to as the Church Militant. There is also the Church Triumphant, in Heaven, and the Church Suffering, in purgatory. Together these three dimensions comprise the Universal Church. The communication or prayer that exists between these dimension is known as the 'communion of saints" referred to in the Nicene Creed and expounded upon by the early Church fathers.

"Christian" is not necessarily synonymous with "saved." Christ shed His blood to redeem all mankind - not just a select few. The infinite merits of that sacrifice become initially applicable when one is baptized but then take deeper root to (hopefully) yield fruit as time goes by. Although we are redeemed the moment Christ enters our life, our salvation is entirely in our hands as far as we are capable of comprehending and taking responsibility for it. Hence the words of the Apostle Paul: "Therefore, work out your salvation in fear and trembling..." The choice is ours to literally "work out" our slavation through our relationship with God and with our neighbors. If wwe choose to we can adandon that effort at any time. Does it mean that one who abandons the effort is doomed> Only God knows for sure. Many have abandoned Chirst for dissolute lives, only to recover their faith and return to the effort of attaining thair salvation. The hagiography of the Church is replete with many such people, such as St. Mary of Egypt to name just one.

Gem: "Just read your Bible plain and simple for what it plainly and simply says and teaches."

If it were that easy then all those who adhere to the "sola Scriptura" school of theology should be on the same page and in complete agreement on everything Sacred Scripture has to say. But the existence of thousands of sects is ample evidence that they do not.

This much is clear even in the NT when the Apostle Philip approaches a eunuch who is reading the Scriptures (the OT, since the NT had not yet been swritten)and asked him if he understood what he was reading The eunuch said he did not and that he needed someone to help him undrstand it.

Even then, it was clear that the Scriptures neither explained nor interpreted themselves with sufficient clarity and that some help - preferably authoritative hep would be needed. Absent a surpeme Magisterial authority or the the guiding counsel of Sacred Tradition a person is pretty much on his own and if he claims the guiding authority of the Holy Spirit, by what right does he claim that another does not enjoy the same guidance?

Gem: "While one may be adopted he may still be disinherited by not abiding by the will of the testator."

Perhaps, but the testator's will is written in HIS own time frame, not ours. God transcends linear time. And what is linear time but the measurement of duration? Since God is eternal and infinite it follows that God has no duration in the true sense of the word: seconds, minutes, hours, centuries, millennia, eons - all are meaningless to Him. To Him all that we perceive as ever was , is now or ever will be is one infinte and eternal NOW. In a sense, the whole universe has not yet begun, is going on now and has already finished - all in the same instant.



Some Theological Responses
"But people of the book are only to be tolerated in subjection as second class citizens,"

OK, 'dhimmi' means 'protected', in early Islam they were often adopted as clients (mawala) of the Arab tribes conquering, who would grant them protection in return for tax revenues.

"paying a special tax,"

Do we not pay taxes in America so the government can provide for our common defense? I am unsure what prevents jizya from being classified as a tax of that category, analogous to the one that would be paid by Muslims for the same purpose. In fact, there was an early disincentive for conversions due to loss of jizya revenue. Yes, it was at a higher rate, but I am not going to defend that historical practice, the is no reason it cannot be considered as subsumed as a simple tax to provide for government services, and no reason why Muslims and non-Muslims should pay differnet rates. It doesn't say anywhere in the Quran, treat them like second-class citizens and charge them higher rates, it just says charge them a tax for the privilege of being protected.

"having houses inferior to Muslims, not being trusted to testify against Muslims in court, and on and on"

Neither of these are in the Koran, they are in man-made Sharia instituted afterwards. I'm not going to defend the historical treatment of shimmis, as I believe it was wrong.

"There are many verses of the Koran that exort Muslims to kill, attack and terrorize infidels (people of the book are considered infidels too). Jews and Christians only receive a degree of tolerance once they are conquered. Those who are not monotheists must either convert or face death. The Muslims murdered countless numbers of Hindus when they conquered northern India."

These verses were revealed at a time when the Meccans were threatening extermination of the Muslims. The infidels therein are specifically the Meccans, and you obviously missed (8:61) "When they incline to peace, you should as well" among others.

And to whoever mentioned abrogation (naskh) that theory is by no means accepted by anywhere near a majority of Muslims, usually only by those with a selective agenda. Each verse needs to be evaluated in its historical context.

"But in general, I can't say that Muhammad would be partcularly disappointed in the extremists, based on Islamic law."

If he saw the travesty that Islamic law has been made into today I'm fairly sure he would reject it.

Alexander
Interesting. Thanks!

Developments
As the Christian Church began to contend with Rabbinic Judaism it became apparent that the two could not co-exist.

Rabbinic Judaism became entrenched in speculative dialog and remnants of failed tradition while Christianity was full of energy full of truth, purpose and a resurrected Leader.

While around both Jews and Christians the pagan Roman empire was crumbling.

Afer the fall of the Empire Christians were the only ones standing, who had any influence. Why? The speculators will speculate.

The world became fragamented and the Jewish people became even more Isolated. Two reasons: the world was strongly influenced by Christian's and the Jews had their loyalty to Rabbinic Judiasm.

What of the many pagans; non-Jews and non-Christians?

They needed something for their pagan bent. Along came Mohammed who took from Judaism and Christianty twisted it's teachings and supplied the pagan world (particularly Arab world) with another 'system of values.'

Now all the world needs is more competitors on the playing field.



Hey catattack
Why not go LEARN about Christianity instead of making yourself look foolish with these notions of yours.

1. Bad people do good things, good people do bad things. Of course man is fallible, otherwise we wouldn't need God would we?

2. There is a difference between forgiveness and salvation. The first one restores a relationship, the other avoids punishment which is rightly due.

3. Of course you might not allow Mrs Winkler into heaven, but God is full of mercy so He probably will. (only Mrs Winkler knows)

4. Its true Mr. Winklers kids will grow up without a father. Its also true you are condemning her based on the underlying belief that this life is paramount of existence. This is the athiest worldview: the 70 years you spend here is final. Enjoy it while you can. This is not the Christian worldview.


here's one for Lydia
Regarding your comment "The christian you described doesn't exist either." Well, here's one for you.

Mary Winkler, 32, has been charged with first-degree murder in the death of her husband, Matthew Winkler, the preacher at the Fourth Street Church of Christ. A friend visited her in jail and Mary just said she was sorry for everything she had done.

I guess there are Christians that commit murder. Or, perhaps, you'll say she's insane, but just like being a little pregnant - it's impossible.

But with your forgiving God, she'll get into heaven with simply saying "I'm sorry". If I was the father of Matthew and was in heaven and saw her there, I'd kick her sorry butt down to h_ll where she belongs. She has no place being in God's heaven. I don't care how sorry she is - she killed her husband in cold blood and left her beautiful children without a father.

tradition
JimP,
The New Testament makes its case in terms of Jewish tradition, quoting many Old Testamnent prophesies regarding Christ. The authors of the NT believed that the Jews of Christ's time were ignoring their tradition to the extent they rejected Christ.
We know nothing of Christ apart from tradition. We would not even have a NT canon if it were not for the First Council of Nicea. Without tradition the word "Christ" is just a sound.

Let's Look At The Convicts
A good place to test Dennis' question might be the penitentiary (a word arrived at by American Christians who felt that sensory deprivation of prisoners would facilitate penitence.) The pokey is a rich harvesting ground for lost souls by evangelistic prison ministry organizations. "Getting right with God" is an oft claimed status by many in the slammer, and religious studies classes are always well attended. If bad people were made good by acquiring religious faith, I would expect a far lower recidivist rate than the one we currently have in the US prison population. That said several studies do point to a lower incident rate among religiously active convicts. Studies on recidivism and religion vary in claims depending from whence the study originated.

hope
IMHO, what might actually save the situation and restore some sense of peace, short of converting a billion Muslims to Christianity, is if a revised Islam can arise. It must insist that it is the true and unrevised faith while at the same time gutting the doctrine of Jihad. I have heard some Muslims suggest that there hasn't been a lawful Jihad since Muhammad's lifetime. I don't believe that that's anywhere close to the truth, but fudging a bit on this point might be the only way to prevent a longer period of violent extremism. If the moderate Muslims could claim to be representing true Islam in their willingness to cooperate rather than destroy, making a detailed, well thought out argument sufficient to convince those willing to be convinced, then it might work. It would have to be made in terms of original sources though, not like the revisionist Christians here in America who just disregard scripture and tradition.

Rabbinic Judaism won the Hearts of Jews
Over the Christ. During the first couple decades of the first century the leaders of Israel broke faith with God and resorted to tradition and dialog.

Christ came and the nation chose their traditions rather than their Savior.

After the temple fell all that was left was dialog. Now the things of God are an easy academic excercise. Anyone can walk into and out of at the flip of a penny.

In the Ben Hur Movie, Baltzazaar, the Gentile recognized the Christ. Telling Ben Hur, the Jew. Ben Hur responds, "happy Baltzazaar, life has answered you." Baltzaraar retort, "Life has been answered."

To say life's answer boils down to a competition of this moral system over that moral system seems repellent when put the systems alongside the Christ.

Scriptures true, 'but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.'

Dialog about morality OR 'the Christ', Son of the Living God.
Seems an easy choice to me.

justaguy
justaguy,

Sunni Muslims are not "Koran-Muslims" to borrow a Christian concept (like "Bible-Christians"). Sunni comes from the Arabic phrase "people of tradition and consensus". Sunni means traditional. The Koran is the foundation, the words of Allah, but the ahadith are anecdotes about the life of Muhammad and are used as a primary source of Islamic law as well. The chapters of the Koran that were revealed later in time supercede the previous ones if there is a contradiction. So when you hear Muslims quote some text of the Koran that seems to guarantee religious freedom, it is likely to have been superceded by a later verse.

To Muslims, Judaism and Christianity started out as prior versions of Islam and became corrupted. Muhammad is called the seal of the prophets; i.e., the last prophet, since his mission was to restore what was lost. Hence a limited tolerance for "people of the book". But people of the book are only to be tolerated in subjection as second class citizens, paying a special tax, having houses inferior to Muslims, not being trusted to testify against Muslims in court, and on and on.

There are many verses of the Koran that exort Muslims to kill, attack and terrorize infidels (people of the book are considered infidels too). Jews and Christians only receive a degree of tolerance once they are conquered. Those who are not monotheists must either convert or face death. The Muslims murdered countless numbers of Hindus when they conquered northern India.

So, it all comes directly and emphatically from Islamic theology. There is some disagreement about the acceptability of suicide attacks. Some scholars liken it to suicide, which is forbidden. Some liken it to killing a Muslim in battle in order to get to and kill an infidel, which is permitted. But in general, I can't say that Muhammad would be partcularly disappointed in the extremists, based on Islamic law.

Our Old Testament is quite violent in places. In several places God orders the genocidal extermination of whole tribes. Revelation, in the New Testament, is also quite violent in places, and the New Testament writers do heap praise on Old Testament figures who engaged in what today might be described as "ethnic cleansing". But we in the West don't do that anymore, at least not in the name of God. There are evil Westerners like Hitler, but they never received Church sanction for what they do.

Bluntly, even considering the Crusades and just war theory, there is nothing in Christian theology which corresponds to Jihad - - perpetual war, with only temporary truces, in all directions until Islam rules the earth. Judaism did have its own holy war, called "herem", in Old Testament times. But it was strictly limited toward securing the Israelites place in a well defined territory, the Land of Israel. Also, Jews haven't invoked such a war since biblical times. That is really the difference. Jihad is about world conquest to impose Islam and subjugate any tolerated monotheists. There is really no parallel in Jewish or Christian thought.

Response to Phoenix Lady
Phoenix Lady

PL: Fanatics... ...are terrified that what they profess to believe is false. They do everything they can to make others profess the same belief in order to confirm that it is true.

LNC: You have posted twice on this discussion, are you terrified that what you profess is false? You are doing a lot to convince us that it is true…

PL: Maybe they need to look at what they profess to believe and ask themselves why they believe it, especially if it doesn't make any sense. They usually discover it was either beaten into them by their parents (who also feared that their belief system is false) or they took on this belief system in rebellion against what was beaten into them as a child.

LNC: Who says it doesn’t make sense. I guess you haven’t studied the Bible very much, it is the most logically consistent and livable system available. My faith wasn’t beaten into me, was yours? Neither is my belief in rebellion, is yours?

PL: It's also typical that converts to any religion tend to be more judgemental (sic) about co-religionists or non-believers, usually because they are themselves terrified that their new worldview is false.

LNC: Your words seem pretty judgmental of those who believe in a religion. Are you terrified that your worldview is false?

PL: Technically, given that Reality is infinite and eternal and therefore beyond comprehension by any part of it, no worldview can ever be fully valid. Also, given that each of us is such a tiny part of Reality, it's inevitable that each of us would a.)have a unique view of Reality and b.) be terrified by the immensity of that Reality.

LNC: Who says that Reality is beyond comprehension? How did you comprehend this? Who/what is this “Reality” of whom/which you speak? The Bible says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1-5,14) The infinite God took on human flesh and became comprehensible to His creation. This is not the first time that the infinite God communicated with His creation and became comprehensible, we see it in many places in both the Old and New Testaments.

PL: All we can do as individuals is accept that each of us IS part of Reality, that each of us has a unique view and relationship with Reality, and that it is our responsibility to comfort each other in the face of our terror. If we can do that, especially for our children, eventually we, as individuals and as a species, may succeed in growing up.
LNC: Jesus said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)

LNC

Ayn Rand never argued
that the universe is a moral being. Morality in her view applies only to biological beings endowed with consciousness not by a supernatural being but by virtue of their inherent biological nature who are constantly faced with the choice of life or death. The universe is quite dead, and indifferent to wether you live or die was her conviction. She did state quite often that we live in a benevolent universe, but by this she meant that we live in a coherent, understandable, non-contradictory universe, where laws, such as the law of gravity, the law of identity(A is A), are universal and immutable, and understandable to the human mind. The universe makes sense, that is what she meant by a benevolent universe. One could conceive a universe where A is A this moment and then B the next, and B becomes C or D, an incoherent, unpredictable universe, an unworkable, UN-understandable universe, where man's mind would be useless to comprehend things and life would be a nightmare. She argued for the primacy of existence over the primacy of consciousness. Consciousness was the product of matter and energy and not the other way around. Subjectivism versus Objectivism or the content of Rand's philosophy were not the point of my post though.

Alexander
Certainly there is good in Islam. There is good in any religion.

I guess Mr. Prager's question, though, still remains, as it is now Islam that poses a threat to the rest of world and wishes its demise. How much of that is directly from Islamic theology?

My understanding of the Koran is that it is indeed much more violent than the other two books. If you can answer, please provide. I am curious.

Stages of religious development
Best-selling author/psychiatist Scott Peck describes four stages of religious development: Chaos, like a child who has not learned anything and is basically totally self-centered; Structured, as we learn the basic principles and concepts and obedience, either willingly or by fear; Analysis, where we examine the structure and compare it with our growing understanding of ourselves and the world, and Integration, where we make our make our beliefs and committments truly our own. I may not have the names right, but that's the idea. People can get "stuck" in any of these stages. Of course, it makes a the principles you commit to make a huge difference.

One of the important concepts of Christianity is that we don't have to "do it ourselves"; in fact, we can't do what God requires of us by ourselves. However, He is willing to give us the strength and understanding to be people that we could never be on our own.

the difference
It is true that Christians in past generations, in the name of God, have done some despicable things. However, in the realm of organized conquest the Crusades stand out as the event of greatest similarity to today's Jihad. Let us remember that the Crusades were a Western response to several decades of begging by the eastern Empire for help. Having been partially conquered by the Muslims, and at the time undergoing a particularly nasty period of abuse, the eastern Church and Empire asked for Roman intervention. Crusaders did commit atrocities at times, but the war was waged to protect Christians and their holy places, at least ostensibly. Forced conversion of Muslims was not the motive.
Jihad is a black mark on the religion of Islam. From the earliest days Islam has taught that it is a Muslim duty to make war in all directions until the world is under "Submission", Islam. There is a house of Islam and a house of war. Treaties are temporary. People of the Book, Jews, Christians and Sabians (interpreted as Zorastrians) may become subject people, treated as second class citizens, but all others must either convert or be killed.

That is Islam.

Just because a "moderate" Muslim is not honest or pious enough to face it does not make it any less true. There is much good in Islam. Charity, mercy, beauty. However, the "extremists" are the ones who are actually practicing the full faith, and that's something that should give us all pause.

Morality is Not Completely Subjective
Johnny,

You almost have it right in your article; however, where you miss, you miss big.

First, you argue that there are such things as morals, and to do so assumes a giver of morality; or, as you say, it becomes a system of “might makes right.” You are also right when you say, “By claiming that there is a set value of morals for ALL mankind to live up to suggests that an authority above us gave us laws.”

However, I don’t follow your reasoning when you say “since it is created by the higher being, they are that being's subjective set of rules.” How do you come to that conclusion? You give no reasoning, nor no logic behind this statement.

If God is infinite and perfect (including morally) then the morals that He has given to us are simply a reflection of His character, not something that is simply made up. The Bible tells us to “be holy, for I the LORD am holy” (Leviticus 11, 19, 20, and other places) or in the New Testament, “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48) God calls for us to reflect His character and purity. This is by no means “a subjective set of rules” as you say.

If these were a subjective set of rules then, whether God gave them or not, we would be under no obligation to obey them. Yet God tells us over and over again in the Bible that there are real consequences for our disobedience to His laws. If morals are relative, then the author’s morals should be included within that framework, yet you claim that the author missed something in his argument – therefore his argument is incomplete and incorrect or wrong. How can you say that if morals are relative? You have no argument.

The Bible clearly and authoritatively lays out the standards which God has left us with beginning with the Garden of Eden, and continuing through Mt. Sinai and then to the Sermon on the Mount. Each standard was spoken by the mouth of God to His people. Each showing us a standard of which we have fallen short. However, Jesus Christ came to pay the penalty that we all owe for our rebellion against God and His perfect moral Law.

LNC

Sorry Johnny...
...you should think these things further...

"...it is simply a thoughtless array of matter." How can you believe in "Him" and call His creation thoughtless?

Ayn Rand
In regards to the previous post above about Objectivity (which I had not read previously but found interesting), the claims that this author makes are also subjective.

Sure, they may sound good, but it is only "objective" by name and not by theory. The universe is not a moral being, it is simply a thoughtless array of matter. Existence itself also does not inherently hold the idea of morality. This is a good example of how, no matter how you look at it, all morals are relative.

As for me, I choose the morality of He who created me and ultimately determines my fate over the morality concocted by one who was created.

One More Thing
In case this wasn't clear, it is also interesting to note that if the Christian God sets the morality for all mankind, then people of other religions are only moral by chance, and it has little to do with their actual religion.

Morality is Completely Subjective
Before you start sharpening the knife, hear me out.

To say that someone who follows a religion is more moral on the average than a non-religious person is self defeating. By claiming that there is a set value of morals for ALL mankind to live up to suggests that an authority above us gave us laws. Furthermore, since it is created by the higher being, they are that being's subjective set of rules. The rules could only be objective if the rules existed above all beings. The very fact that they were creating by a being gives them subjectivity.

If it is the God of Christianity, then all people who do not obey his subjective commands for us are considered immoral. Since one of His commands is to give our lives to him, all who have not given our lives to him are on a lower moral playing field. For those that lie, murder, steal, cheat, disrespect parents, and worship OTHER GODS are all living committing acts of immorality according to Him.

Similarly, if God's morals are the morals we should follow, then the morals of another religion that contradict God's calling for us to offer our lives to him also lack a level of morality that Christians have.

If it is the God of Islam who is the authority over us, then his subjective view of killing non-muslims is equally valid. If he has the power, then he gets to make the rules. Also, anyone who charges interest on a loan is a sinner in Allah's eyes. Anyone who does not pray to Mecca is displeasing him. The list of rules that contradict or are not brought up by the Christian God goes on.

For the athiest, there is no higher power to make the rules, so the higher power becomes the strongest human being. This is why many athiestic societies end up as oppressive regimes. With no higher being to play referee, the game becomes "might makes right."

So what does this article miss? The fact that all morality is relative. What is the author's baseline for morality in this article? He mentioned he is a Jew, so I'm assuming the laws of the old testament? That means that he is basing his morality on the subjective list of laws given by the God of the Jews, which means he is saying that the laws given by other Gods from other religions are immoral if they contradict his God.

If he was a Muslim, his definition of morality could be completely different. If he was an athiest, he might even be saying that people who follow his idea of morality are the most moral people!

To write an article about morality without including a strong argument for the rules we should follow is incomplete.

I have actually written a simple look at the errors that many college students make when forming and discussing their view of morality in a world without God.

http://johnnyfelts.blogspot.com

Alwaysquestion
Is religion the only way to morality? Nope. It most certainly is not.

But it is the only way to truth.

And I like Ayn Rand, only for her economic theories, not for the selfishness.

Is religion the only way to morality?
I grew up Roman Catholic. One day browsing through a library I came upon a book with the most bizarre title, it was "The Virtue of Selfishness", by Ayn Rand. It was the first time I had ever heard something so outrageous, selfishness a virtue?! I read feverishly through the book and finished it in one night. It was devastating, probably the most traumatic spiritual experience I've ever had, my faith came tumbling down. I became an Objectivist, or should I say a student of Objectivism, which was Rand's nomenclature for those not handpicked by her as having achieved a true and full understanding of her philosophy. Objectivism is an Atheistic philosophy, everything in the universe is natural and man's senses and reason are completely adequate to understand everything in the universe. Objectivism has a strict and severe system of ethics based on Aristotelian logic. I found more fire and brimstone moralizing in this atheistic, secular philosophy than I had ever heard in any church pulpit. The ultimate goal of a benevolent code of ethics is the achievment of personal happiness, without sacrificing yourself to others, or others to yourself is the heart of Objectivist morality. So no, I suppose religion is not the only way to a well defined sense of good and evil.

But I was unhappy, very unhappy, as an Atheist and as a student of Objectivism. The other students of Objectivism seemed just as unhappy, everybody seemed miserable, but nobody there would ever have come out and said anything of the sort. Everyone was a true believer or pretended to be so for fear of being thought immoral or irrational or just plain stupid. When Ayn Rand's moral discrepancies came to light, which to this day are condemned as lies and blasphemy by the true believers, I felt free to leave it all behind and walk away. Even though there is much to be commended in her philosophy, and much which is monumental in her ideas the experience was stifling and suffocating, I certainly found no happiness there. I finally listened to my inner voice that had told me from the beggining something isn't right here, this isn't the answer.

Quantum physics hints at, implies other dimensions, dimensions not neccesarily open to the bodily senses, and those who have had near-death experiences speak of encountering a being of light who when they tried to impress with how good a Christian or Jew they had been, were met with good-hearted laughter, the being of light was not interested in theological belief or ideology, but with what the person had done with his life, what good did you do
in the world, what love and compassion did you offer the world.

I no longer care much for organized religion or organized philosophy. "There are more things under earth and sky than are dreamt of in your religion or philosophy, Horatio", has become my own admonition. I wish I had more converts.
No, on second thought, I don't. LOL

happy to respond scooternyc
"Good for you, I guess it's working out for you. Do tell, how is it that you came to believe in your god, bible and doctrine?"

A great question. The answer is the exact same one you used to reach yours. I listened to many different teachings and I chose my own. I, like yourself, have to rely on what is told to me by other men(generic term, women too). Then I have to decide for myself what to believe. We call this faith. Without some miracle happening in front of me there is no way to know except through faith, and the same for athiests and other religions.

I have made a choice: Christianity. I cannot produce a set of calculations to you to prove it is the correct faith. I can however tell you that Budda, Mohammed and all other prophets of God are dead. Christ is not. This is why the death and Resurrection is so crucial and why Christianity exists.

If you don't believe in the Resurrection, you *by definition* cannot be a Christian. Its like C.S. Lewis said: Either Jesus was crazy, a liar or the Son of God. There cannot be another alternative.

Even if you do not make a choice what to believe, you have made one.


Christ questions Nicodemus…

"You are a teacher of Israel and do not know these things?" [John 3]

Why did Christ rebuke Nicodemus for not understanding the nature of man and the need of regeneration, given that he was a teacher of the law? What does the Old Testament Scriptures teach about these things?

Continued on the blog...

Right Answer, Wrong Answer
Asking does relegion make people better is as poor of a question as asking does a job make you rich. There is as much variation between relegions as there is between professions and there is just as much variation in their outcome.

The "Good" in Islam
Don't hold your breath. So-called "Kind and Decent" Muslims can't tell you how Islam made them so because it didn't. You will find that they are overwhelmingly secular people who pay little attention to the Koran. Those who take the Koran seriously are known as terrorists and terrorist supporters/sympathizers.

Also
You can't say anything ending like the word modic_um does.

Jesus
At least I can still say Jesus. I bet it's banned with an accented "u", though.

Anyway, He appears to have noticed the hypocritical tendencies of religious people as well.

BurtB
Yeah, and it's also wierd that you cannot say cu_lo but you can say chingate. IMO, chingate is way worse than cu_lo, especially since the latter is in the bible, just like ass.

Of couse, you cannot say chinga_r, the infinitive of chingate, which is like not being allowed to say the F-word unless you're telling someone to F-U.

ridickulous
C_ulo
Cu_lo
Cul_o

ridic_ulous
ridicu_lous
ridicul_ous


ridickulous
Trevor writes: Tuesday, September, 05, 2006 1:05 PM
ridickulous
On Thursday, August 31, I attempted to post a comment here in response to Michelle Malkin's column of the previous day. My post contained the word "ridicu_lous" (without the underscore). I have to spell it with an underscore, because, apparently, we can no longer use that word on the Town Hall forums. Why? Because "ridicu_lous" happens to contain the word "cu_lo" (again, without the underscore), which is Spanish for "ass" or "asshole", and may also refer to anal sex.

****
I tried to enter the "offensive word" in quotes, thinking that might help, but I entered only the words in quotes and....

{What is this "ridicul_ous" stuff? }

got back the following error message:

"This comment contains the following unacceptable words: Cul_o "

I do not believe in using curse words in a public forum, but this is
ridic_ulous


Mostly
Religions of all stripes make a person better.

However, and I am sure this has been addressed in the thread, and Mr. Prager touched on it as well, a religious person can be affected by pride. Pride gets in the way of what a religion is supposed to be. Jesus addresses this several times, and it is why Paul essentially says that faith is all you need. Though he also says faith without works is dead, he says works are an output of faith, not vice-versa. Works lead to pride: "Look at what I've done."

And to me, this is the biggest distinction between Christianity and other religions: faith is paramount. Legalism plays a part, but all of that flows from the faith. So, if one is faithful to God, and to nothing else-- even being "right"-- he is better person. It is when we start allowing the pride to set in that religion becomes dangerous.

Each religion has a claim ... False
Disabled SS & Vet says:
"Each religion has a claim on its adherent that it is the "only" way to Heaven. "

This is false.

Judaism holds that both Jews and non-Jews go to heaven. The Jew is responsible for keeping 613 commandments, the non-Jew, for keeping 7.

That is why the Jewish religion does not go out of its way to convert non-Jews.

Weirdly...
I also do agree that organized religion always has been used and always will be used for the purpose of Evil in this world. Churches are completely corruptable, and they're the best place for an enemy to attack in order to turn people away from their religion.

Nevertheless, I know God. I believe in Him completely, and I know He is completely good.

As for the self-help bit. We're mind, body, and soul. Absent the soul, you're mind will serve only to make excuses for your body. Life will be just denial and degradation.

And, if the West is any indication, your society will die in five generations, simply because they're too selfish to reproduce.

"Tolerance"
"Stange how my tolerance of all religions gets bounced back with such violence from the Christians."

I haven't checked my knickers for wads recently, but I can tell you that I'm proudly and unapologetically intolerant of all other religions. The one partial exception is made for Judaism, and only because our faiths are intertwined.

The underlying premise of this article and most secular noise is that God doesn't exist and that "religion" is a matter of choice; a cheap, self-help God-idea. To be an true adherent to "religion" is to reject that idea along with all the other P.C. feebleness.

Big Picture; if there's a God, we're accountable only to Him. It doesn't matter in the least whose feelings we offend while following His path.

Still no wads...no knickers either, actually.

Fanatics...
...are terrified that what they profess to believe is false. They do everything they can to make others profess the same belief in order to confirm that it is true.

Maybe they need to look at what they profess to believe and ask themselves why they believe it, especially if it doesn't make any sense. They usually discover it was either beaten into them by their parents (who also feared that their belief system is false) or they took on this belief system in rebellion against what was beaten into them as a child.

It's also typical that converts to any religion tend to be more judgemental about co-religionists or non-believers, usually because they are themselves terrified that their new worldview is false.

Technically, given that Reality is infinite and eternal and therefore beyond comprehension by any part of it, no worldview can ever be fully valid. Also, given that each of us is such a tiny part of Reality, it's inevitable that each of us would a.)have a unique view of Reality and b.) be terrified by the immensity of that Reality.

All we can do as individuals is accept that each of us IS part of Reality, that each of us has a unique view and relationship with Reality, and that it is our responsibility to comfort each other in the face of our terror. If we can do that, especially for our children, eventually we, as individuals and as a species, may succeed in growing up.

Bobby,
I respectfully disagree. When I was a kid, I believed in Santa Claus. There was no doubt. Of course, just because you believe something doesn't make it true. Alas, this was the case with Santa Claus. Also, these days, many would argue with you about truth being truth.

Religion makes people better???
I have to take issue with your statement that “religion is the finest vehicle for individuals and societies to become decent, good, moral” etc. It has been my experience that people look for support for the evil or goodness within them and often find that support in religion. For example, there was a fellow I knew while attending a Baptist Church during the time that the abortion clinics were being attacked. A group of us where talking and he stated that he strongly supported the idea of bombing and attacking the abortion clinics. With the implied support of the group, I told him that if I ever got any evidence that he had been involved in any violence toward an abortion group I would promptly turn him in and follow through to support the strongest possible penalty for his actions. I later learned that he transferred to a Catholic group that apparently provided better support for his violent desires. Transferring from Baptist to Catholic for someone that accepts the teaching of the church is not an easy thing to do, but for this individual, support for the evil that he wanted to do was more important.

I have noticed that the Christian groups with a higher percentage of True Believers also seem to have a higher percentage of members that are not real nice. When I managed a restaurant, I had a church group mostly composed of true believers, that regularly came for Sunday lunch after church. Because of their behavior, I had a real problem getting any of my waitresses to serve them. I think that these folks look for a religious group that will “forgive their sins” or forgive their bad behavior instead of attempting to correct their behavior. I have learned from experience that if a business advertises its religion such as a fish on its sign, I had better be careful if I choose to do business with them.

Also, those folks that want to help others, such as the homeless etc., will often find a religious group that supports their desires which is why most of our hospitals have some affiliation with a church, and the more successful homeless shelters are run by the Salvation Army.

I think people do not change their behavior as a result of religion but look for a religious group to support them in their desire for good or evil. I think the number of people that desire evil is probably about the same in the countries that support Islam as it is here in the US. The big difference is that here, a person openly desiring to commit violence is not supported, but a missionary that plans on traveling to a dangerous part of the world will receive strong support. I suspect that in the Islamic world, a person expressing a desire to join a terror group will probably receive the kind of support that we typically give to our missionaries.

We need to accept the fact that we are at war with the Islamic affiliated terror groups and if we don’t start using more wisdom then what I have seen in Washington, they will win this war. We need to start by removing our support for them by not buying any more of their oil. We can do this by switching to electricity as the fuel of choice in our automobiles. Next we need to use some wisdom in replacing their schools that teach violence as a part of normal accepted life and start training them in the idea that violence is not acceptable to society or God - everybodys God.


The Poll

DavidM
"Hateful conjecture and utter bigotry. This theocracy nonsense is unencumbered by any evidence, whilst there is plenty of evidence of the OTHER side attempting to drive all religion and morals from public view. "

THANK YOU! I don't think the Democratic Undergound or the KosKids spout this nonsense about theocracy, percapita, more than Townhall.

What a joke. No wonder recent polls say that only a slight majority continues to think that the GOP is friendly to religion.

Christianity vs denominations
Belonging to a specific denomination doens't guarantee that the member is (or isn't) a Christian. Many good denominational (or non-denominational) members are not Christians (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, & Dianne Feinstein are a but a few examples of non-christians who are claim to be good members of their denomination).

faith...doubt
An individual who tells me he\she has "faith" in some belief system or anything for that matter, is to tell me that he\she doubts it as well. Truth is truth...it requires no profession of faith. "Beliefs" are nothing more than just that....beliefs. To believe in anything is to doubt it existence as well. Hence, the question of believing in a higher power is without any logical answer.

For Linda, a question & a comment
Linda, you wrote, "But, to believe Falwell, Dobson, and their ilk wouldn't try to conquer the world and bring us all to our knees before their particular Christ - IF THEY COULD - is faulty thinking. It's only our societal bias against force and violence that keeps them in check."

First, the comment: Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are both Christians, yes. Otherwise they are as similar as Michael Jackson and Michael Jordan.

Now, the question: exactly where do you believe our "societal bias" against forced conversion originated?

Linda,
what it looks like is that you've baited everyone and then acted shocked when they responded and then labled them fanatics. Pretty nifty. Also, you have a stange definition of "violence."

ED,
if they didn't believe their religion was the right one, why would they believe it in the first place?

How to get Christian knickers in a wad
Easy. Just try to discuss tolerance of all religions. Or critical thinking. Or why Christians are bent on everybody believing their particular dogma.

Yep. They start swatting with the usual - "atheist, bigot, etc." (DavidM)

I have listened to all of Dobson I can take. (Mountain Rose) I am not an atheist. And I only refer to "fanatics" in my previous comments, so those of you who take it personally must be...fanatics... by your own admission.

Stange how my tolerance of all religions gets bounced back with such violence from the Christians.

Doesn't it kinda prove my point about needing to have everybody "have it YOUR way?"

Gina
Great post, I'm reading that book right now and it's revealing in so many ways. Again, thanks for the post.

DavidM
BTW - you have a very convoluted diatribe going on.

"Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to" - Maureen O'Hara, Miracle on 34th Street.

"When COMMON SENSE TELLS YOU NOT TO."

Being as enmeshed within your religion as you are, you have made it impossible to have a discussion with anyone who doesn't believe as you do, therefore you have revealed the type of individual for whom the rest of us should be cautious as you are exactly the type of person that is more similar to an Islamic Fascists reading the Qur'an than a moderate voice.

Good for you, I guess it's working out for you. Do tell, how is it that you came to believe in your god, bible and doctrine?

to MOonline and others
I invite you to read the following article by Robert Spencer, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)". A book I would strongly recommend.

Journalists' Forced Conversion Not Contrary to Islam
by Robert Spencer
Posted Aug 30, 2006

The most bizarre element of the two weeks of captivity suffered by Fox News reporter Steve Centanni and photographer Olaf Wiig was the video that surfaced depicting their conversion to Islam. Even before the journalists revealed that their conversions had been coerced, there were indications that they were not acting freely. While reading a statement he himself had ostensibly written, Centanni stumbled over words, appeared to puzzle over the handwriting, and seemed to grimace after pronouncing the words “peace be upon him” after the name of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Most jarring was the video editor’s invocation of the favorite Koran verse of Western analysts of Islam and terrorism, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). The irony of featuring this verse in a video depicting two forced conversions has been widely noted. In fact, however, the juxtaposition of this verse with the video of Centanni and Wiig was probably not simply transparent deception, as strange as that may seem.

Islamic law forbids forced conversion, but as Andrew Bostom documented earlier this week, this is a law that throughout Islamic history has all too often been honored in the breach. Nor is this yet another case of a “twisting” or “hijacking” of Islam; in fact, Islamic law regarding the presentation of Islam to non-Muslims manifests a different understanding of what constitutes freedom from coercion and freedom of conscience from that which prevails among non-Muslims.

Muhammad instructed his followers to call people to Islam before waging war against them—the warfare would follow from their refusal to accept Islam or to enter the Islamic social order as inferiors, required to pay a special tax (Sahih Muslim 4294). There is therefore a threat in this “invitation” to accept Islam. Would one who converted to Islam under the threat of war be considered to have converted under duress? No; from the standpoint of traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence, such a conversion would have resulted from “no compulsion.”

Muhammad reinforced these instructions many times during his prophetic career. Late in his career, he wrote to Heraclius, the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople: “Embrace Islam and you will be safe” (Bukhari, 4.52.191). Heraclius did not accept Islam, and soon the Byzantines would know well that the warriors of jihad indeed granted no safety to those who rejected their “invitation.”

After being freed, Centanni said: “We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint. Don’t get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn’t know what … was going on.”

Indeed, few in the West know what’s going on regarding the example of Muhammad and the stance of traditional Islam on conversion. The human rights should have the courage to recognize and denounce this conversion-or-else directive, and to recognize the plight of those who even today suffer from its scourge. Moreover, with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad operating according to Muhammad’s instructions, this now has geopolitical implications. In his letter to President Bush, Ahmadinejad invited him to accept Islam, and then echoed the Prophet of Islam in delivering a threat to Bush through Mike Wallace: “We are all free to choose. But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate.”

Ahmadinejad’s threat, as well as the ordeal of Centanni and Wiig, epitomizes the threat that the global jihad represents to the freedom of conscience. Analysts are increasingly beginning to note that the conflict has ideological dimensions, but these dimensions are still imperfectly understood in the public sphere. Were Western leaders courageous enough to speak forthrightly about the threat we face as an Islamic jihad, they could use the “conversions” of Centanni and Wiig to illustrate one of the elements of Western civilization that is being challenged and that we are resolved to defend. Unfortunately, mired as they are in denial about the nature of the “terror” threat itself, they have made as yet no such resolution.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" and the forthcoming "The Truth About Muhammad" (both from Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).


In response
"How can you say that motives are irrelevant? Obviously you do consider them relevant because you agree that soldiers and serial killers are different, and the only difference between their actions is motive."

Actually I'm not considering motive at all, I'm merely observing that one person killed to defend him/her self and behaviorially will do it again; one person killed individuals for the sake of killing and will behaviorially do it again as the premise of my theory is that he/she has the potential to repeat the behavior; one we approve of in our society, one we do not.

Based on the actions of both, there are reactions and consequences to both scenarios.

The distincition between murder, self-defense and military action all create a consequence but each consequence is based on the action and the context, not the motive, of the individual.

Does religion make people worse?
You bet! Throught 25 years in the military I grew to be cautious of people who call themselves religious. (Fanatics) These were the ones that were only out for themselves. One of the best part-time, money making side lines was preaching. Tell the people what they want to hear and they will love you. They were the ones who would not help their fellow men but would criticise and condem with the greater than thou attitude. Go to other nations as misionaries (to further their own resume) and tell the people of other religions that their's is no good and the one we bring is the only one that will get you into heaven. What gives these people the right to belive their religion is the right one. How can we condem the middle east for pushing their religion when we have been doing the same for centuries.

DavidM
I find it interesting that rather than engage in a discussion about my philosophy and the roots of that understanding you chose to lash out in some diatribe for which there is no basis of your comments. That's fine, whatever you wish.

Linda the fanatic
"But, to believe Falwell, Dobson, and their ilk wouldn't try to conquer the world and bring us all to our knees before their particular Christ - IF THEY COULD - is faulty thinking. It's only our societal bias against force and violence that keeps them in check. "

Hateful conjecture and utter bigotry. This theocracy nonsense is unencumbered by any evidence, whilst there is plenty of evidence of the OTHER side attempting to drive all religion and morals from public view.

"What is behind the fanatic's need to convert everybody to their particular religion?"

You mean the religion of atheism? I think its the overpowering need to feel in control. It takes quite a bit of humility to accept that God is greater than you are.

I guess when you attempt to teach your children to be nice to others, we should label you a 'fanatic'.

My critical thinking tells me you are more a bigot than Falwell ever was.

Any religious fanatic would if he could
I'm not into organized religion, however, I think it's a great organizational tool in the world to keep relative peace and order - for lack of a better system. So I'm tolerant.

But, to believe Falwell, Dobson, and their ilk wouldn't try to conquer the world and bring us all to our knees before their particular Christ - IF THEY COULD - is faulty thinking. It's only our societal bias against force and violence that keeps them in check.

I think the violence of Islamic radicals is a cultural thing more than anything. The Bible apparently allows for some pretty nasty brutality too, so I believe it's not necessarily the doctrine, but the interpretation combined with a cultural acceptance of violence that creates Islamic terrorism.

Catholics in this country sat quietly by for decades and let priests molest children en masse. Maybe Islamists here and around the world do nothing to upset the radical element of their religious system for some of the same reasons. Can't be bothered? Afraid of retribution? Who knows?

I think the better question is "What is behind the fanatic's need to convert everybody to their particular religion?"

What we need is some teaching of critical thinking in this world, not teaching of morality and religion. When people can think critically, they get tolerant, not violent.

Mountain Rose
To answer your question, "Where does the knowledge of the right thing come from?" you must first ask yourself if morals are relative or absolute.

If the religious person believes that right is right because God made it so, then morals are relative and may change whenever God wishes it. In this case, the atheist would argue that humans can define their own morals based on concepts of fair play and the common good.

If however, morals are absolute, then they are beyond the will of God to change. Atheists would argue that absolute morals can be deduced through reasoning and logic without having to rely on a supreme being to tell us.

Either way, atheists has the advantage of knowing that they are doing the right thing without the worry that they might be listening to the wrong God.

scooternyc
How can you say that motives are irrelevant? Obviously you do consider them relevant because you agree that soldiers and serial killers are different, and the only difference between their actions is motive.

MOnline, et al
Thank you, MOnline, for posting your responses so as to clarify your position, even though many here don't agree with it.

Thanks also to ScooterNYC for posting his response in a civilized fashion.

And thanks to Patriot 1 for reminding us all that there's a big difference between faith (which is the relationship between you and Reality, by whatever name you call it) and religion (which is a man-created structure designed to either a.) control people or b.) provide a way for people to learn how to accept the reality of their relationship with Reality).

Whether a person chooses to accept that he or she is part of Reality or not determines which side of the Golden Rule he or she will walk on most of the time.

A person who chooses to accept his or her place as part of Reality will generally choose to walk on the bright side of the Golden Rule and treat all others with respect, as equals, unless attacked.

A person who chooses to reject his or her place as part of Reality will generally choose to walk on the dark side of the Golden Rule and treat all others with disrespect, as contemptible subhumans. Such a person will attack at will and claim self-defense.

The Golden Rule, stated as "You do to others what you expect them to do to you (consciously or subconsciously) is a well known law of human nature--the law of projection. That is, we project outward onto everyone around us our own internal states of being and our own motivations.

The point is, whether you ascribe to any religion or none at all, you still have only one choice at any given moment--will you accept or deny your place as part of Reality. Will you accept responsibility for your choices and actions or will you reject it and blame everyone else for your choices and actions.

That's really what this whole discussion is about.

The problem is the people
First and foremost I wish to applaud MOnline for his eloquent and well argued piece. I agree with many of the points that he and many of the other religious moderates have made on this discussion board.

I believe that in most cases of religious violence the problem is not the texts of religions, in most cases people are very selective about the commandments that they choose to follow (i.e. extreme "christians" are more than happy to persecute gay people according to the tirades of Paul, however they are less willing to follow the commandment that all those who wear clothing of mixed cloth are to be stoned) in almost all cases of violence it is a mixture of economic inequality and political/cultural dominance or persecution. The reason that their is very little religious violence in the west is due to the lack of extreme poverty.
Any religion that in its scriptures or in its dogma (such as the catechisms) allows for the use of violence even if only in exceptional circumstances. To my knowledge the only major world religion which explicitly forbids violence without any caviats is Buddhism, and to my knowledge no wars have been launched in the name of Sidatra. It may also be the nihilistic nature of ascendence or "nirvana" in the religion which encourages people to work for peace as they will simply return to this world until they are at peace and will not be rewarded for their martyrdom by God/Allah/Vishnu/Yaweh.
There will always be violence and people will always use reasons to justify it but until the vast inequalities in economic power and political freedoms are adressed.

On a more philosophical level religions of all forms could be considered inducive of violence due to their absolutist moral stance. I believe that in a perfect world Utilitarianism would provide the perfect basis for a harmonious society as its aim is to provide the greatest ammount of happiness for the greatest ammount of people. Its relativistic stance on moral issues allows those in possesion of knowledge and logic to make moral judgements without being constrained by the writings of supposed prophets which have a very specific socio-historic setting which leads many to question their relevence to modern life. However this is an impossible dream due to the fallen world in which we live.

To conclude as famed ape wrestler and charioteer Charlton Heston almost said "Gods don't kill people, people kill people."

using spell check
I hope you can forgive me; it is hard for non-native speaker/writer to know all English words by heart. I will use spell checker next time.

How we all got here
No I am not going to talk about creation but instead what has lead religiously to the present views of some radical Muslims.

First I might note, after having several conversation with individuals that called themselves moderate Muslims, each corrected my estimates. There are around 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. I had suggested as Mr. Prager did that at least 10% were radical or supported radical interpretation of Islam. Each of the Muslims I communicated with said that no, the percentage is at least 20%. That means western democracies are facing a larger population of people that have declared they are our enemy than we did during WWII fighting Germany, Japan and their Allies.

Second, Islam cannot avoid its history. There are few if any religions that started by using the sword as Islam did. Druing the first centuries of Christianity, it was Christians that suffered torture and death. Not until a Roman Emperor made Christianity the state religion and politics became involved that Christianity was then spread through force.

Third, the recent history of the modern Islamists (radical Islam) began early in the 20th Century, not just with Osama and his followers, or when Iran because a Islamic Republic, or even when Israel became a country. Founders of the Muslim Brotherhood were questioning the entire direction of Islam had taken in the centuries previous to the 20th Century, specifically in countries that were predominately Muslim. They want to return to the basics of Islam and all Muslim countries to be ruled by Sharia Law. OK, if that is true why the heck are they trying to fight the West.

Fourth, it seems that all of my life I have been in the middle of a debate over whether religion made people evil or people turned religion into something evil. Religion has been and is used as a tool to rally people to a cause. Even Buddhism was turned into a mental device to improve warriors when it reach Japan.

Fifth, while I will accept that many Muslims in the world do not wish war or violence there are still enough that believe Islam was meant for all the world even if it requires war. To Islamists those people failing to convert are therefore infidels even if they are of the Book. Combine the desire to spread Islam through jihad with those that wish to return Persia to its past greatness or to expand Islamic control to at least all the historically Islamic country, and the West faces a significant opponent.

However, what I fail to understand is why the Islamist believe the problems in the Muslim world are America's fault. That means the Islamists are truly underestimating the power of Islam and the resourcefulness of Muslims to rise to greatest except through violence and war. The Islamists leaders truly underestimate the followers of Islam and seemed to prefer to turn them into cannon fodder to advance their own personal power.

Don't do as I do, do as I say ...
This has been a very good discussion, with many interesting points of view from each of the major faiths.

Whenever I hear anyone telling how "faithful" they are to their religion, I am always reminded of a conversation I once had with a friend who was a US Diplomatic Courier. I was living in London at the time, and his normal route was London, to Paris, to Saudi Arabia and return.

He told me that a basic rule of the legs into and out of Saudi Arabia was that you never used the lavatories just before getting to Saudi Arabia or after leaving there. The reason was that these seemed to be the private domain of the females of the Saudi royal family, and you could easily get trampled to death if you got in their way.

The great need for these facilities was not for normal use, but for these ladies to change into or out of (as the direction of the flight dictated) ultra-expensive western designer clothes, makeup and jewelry. Following that, copious amounts of the finest champange and liquor flows, leaving most of them drunk before they get to Paris.

Getting off the plane in Paris, London, etc., the men and women both go crazy at living the wild secular life of drinking, gambling, clubbing, etc. away from the strict and confining laws of Saudi Arabia (sponsors and financers of Wahabism). He said this happened on almost every flight because of the huge number of members of the royal family.

I never doubted the story because I witnessed their conduct myself, both in London and on the beaches of the French Riviera - where you were just as apt to see the Saudi ladies in a topless string-bikini as not.

This is not a particular dig at Islam or its people, just another small example of the gross hipocrisy that surrounds religion - all religions!

No, I am not an atheist.

reply to Mountain Rose
Perhaps my words weren't as eloquent as yours. But, I agree with you, I would rather live next door to a good (and moral and decent) neighbor, whether they are religious or not.

I'm not using the excuse that God's people are flawed to keep him away from me. (I never even said that his people are flawed.) I believe in God and I believe Jesus was a very influential and spiritual religious leader, that preached the basics of Judaism.

"Religion" makes no person good or bad..
Religion is a man-made system supposedly created to help people with limited knowldege of the Creator come to know Him. It doesn't matter if that religion is Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaeism or any other "ism". Far too often religion is confused with faith. The two are not the same! The number of religions and subsets of religions is proof that these ideaologies are subject to the whims and needs of those creating them. Catholicism came to exist after Constantine became a Christian and mandated that "Christianity" would be the only accepted "religion" in Rome. What happens to these preists and clerics of other belief systems? In order to keep their jobs or positions, they adapt certain "important" aspects of their belief systems into the new system. Thus, you have praying to saints, the Virgin Mary, and others, as well as, the concept of having priest mediate between oneself and God. One confesses sin to a human priest instead of going directly to God as the Bible teaches.

In Islam, we find Shia's, Sunni's, and a host of other subsets of the man religion. When Muhammed created his religion, he incorporated many of the aspects of other systems so that he could control those populations. One classic example of this is his "vision" from Allah that the black sin stone in Medina and all the required prayers, bowing, and such, are actually part of the Islamic religion. This stone (almost assuredly a meteorite) was worshipped for ages in the local Arab religion. Muhammed knew that it would be easier to incorporate this item to his new religion than to kill all of the believers of the old religion. Allah himself is a pagan moon god from a smaller belief system likely held by Muhammed's mother or first wife.

Judaeism itself is broken into groups liberal, conservative, orthodox, and has created a new branch, the "self-hating" jew.

Truth is, religions and cults are born and die all the time. They are used to control just a few people to nations of people to billions of people. Truth is, no religion brings us closer to God or to an understanding of right and wrong. This is acieved through faith and only faith. The prophets of the Old Testament and Jesus Himself taught that the pious religous man will not get into heaven or know the Father, but only those who have faith if God, faith in God's Word, and yes, faith in His Son will know Heaven. All good, all right, comes from the Father. He gave it to us when He created us and continues to assure us of it through His Word and Prayer. No religion can give us this.

Re: ONE part says a lot here
MOnline writes: Here you are, from all over the world, all Muslims condemned it:
http://www.cair.com/html/911statements.html"

ALL MUSLIMS? That is for to laugh, Ebrahim. Let's put aside for the moment the fact that CAIR has already been outed as a suit-and-tie, office-front facade for the Mohammedan Jihad.

I've already seen the document. It's been trotted out like a proof-text by every Mohammedan apologist for the past 5 years. If you added together all the names and then assumed all the "families" referred to as attending various rallies on or after Sept. 11 consisted of at least 10 people, you'd barely hit the number of people who died in the WTC attack.

But I'm a generous guy. Let's throw in another 100,000 "moderate" Mohammedans who "deplore" the 911 attack. What the hell, let's round off the number at 500,000. Mathematically, that means approximately 0.0005% percent of the Mohammedan world condemned what happened that day. Hardly ALL.

Moreover, most of the folks doing the condemning did so from the comfort, freedom and relative safety of the U.S., Canada or Europe. I'd be willing to bet that the statements quoted from others in predominately Mohammedan countries were likely lifted from much broader statements in which they went on to attack the West, Christianity and, of course, the dreaded "Zionist entity."

What has the "moderate" Mohammedan world done LATELY? There have plenty of very bloody terrorist attacks between 2001 and now. Where are the statements of outrage? Where are the rallies of protest against these so-called traitors to true Islam? Hmmmmm?

Let's go further. Let's say that just one-half of one percent of all Mohammedans worldwide are active jihadists or passive supporters of jihad. That leaves a total of 5 MILLION dedicated, world-conquering, Jew-hating, America-loathing, Musselmen scattered around the globe.

One is hard-pressed to believe that the other 99.5% of "good" Mohammedans such as yourself are utterly powerless to prevent this awful perversion of their "good" religion or even express their disdain or disapproval. Even with its powerful weapons and armed fighters, the remaining one-half of one percent of true jihadists can't possibly silence the 99.5% majority.

And yet, one looks and listens in vain for the massive rallies and protests. That's because they aren't there. And don't blame it on repressive governments.

I have seen riots in France, a heinous murder in Holland, bombings in London and Madrid, along with several SUV attacks and shootings in the U.S. What I have not seen is tens of thousands of "moderate" Mohammedans taking to the streets to protest this "perversion" of their holy religion in France, Great Britain, Spain, Holland, Germany, or, especially, in the U.S. - where MILLIONS of Mohammedans reside. And there is certainly plenty of freedom to do so in any of these countries.

Yet, let a sane voice argue for profiling Mohammedans at the airport and before you know it, CAIR and every other jihadist front-group is caterwauling that we are about to bring back the WW2 internment centers.

Enough already, Ebrahim (or whatever your real name is). Stop peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. Nobody but a fool, a naif, a liberal, the Democrat party leadership or a fellow "moderate" Mohammedan frontman such as yourself would believe the crap you are peddaling.

You'll get a much nicer reception at DailyKos or HuffPo, where the Bush-loathing, America-hating, anti-Semitic moonbats will roll out the red carpet for you.


scooternyc and faith
ScooterNYC should set up a temple somewhere so we can all partake of his knowledge and wisdom.

[quote]When an individual reaches an understanding of true moral value and generosity of "spirit", one no longer needs the "parental" guidance of a "god", you understand to the very core of yourself good/bad, choice, responsibility, accountability and the consequences of your actions, THIS is truly evolving and "leaving" the metaphorical "nest". [/quote]

In other words he knows the 'real story' and Christians and other religious types are just bamboozled by a scam he figured out a long time ago. All you need to do is think long and hard and you will arrive at better morals than that Bible. Yeah...

Scooter didn't acquire his knowledge from other people-which is the crux of his arguments against *faith* (a word which he clearly does not understand). If he had, he would be at no more advantage than anyone he looks down on. No he reached his conclusions through some other 'evolved' method.

For those without the anti-religious/conspiratorial bent:
Jesus was here 2000 years ago and he offered each of us salvation through belief in Him as the son of God, the only cost is faith which unfortunately requires releasing your ego and admitting you are not God. The real question is not WHETHER you have faith, but IN WHAT do you have faith.


Once saved always...??? Nemo
NemoParticularis,

Hmmm... Are you saying that a person who has once accepted Christ cannot at some point decide to turn away and reject his salvation?

Paul said he, "buffeted himself daily lest he should be cast away". Who is it that "falls from grace"? Which did Christ speak about more, Heaven or Hell? Add it up. The answer is quite an insight. Just read your Bible plain and simple for what it plainly and simply says and teaches.

While one may be adopted he may still be disinherited by not abiding by the will of the testator.

GEM



religious wickedness
The best people you will ever meet, you will meet them in church. The worst people you will ever meet, you will meet them in church--there is no wickedness like religious wickedness.

People who criticized, The Passion of the Christ, movie for anti-semitism, missed the point. It was not Jews who killed Christ, it was religious leaders.

Man's nature has not changed in two thousand years. If Christ were here today, religious leaders would hate him and try to kill him. There is just something corrupting about religious hierarchy--or maybe corrupt and wicked men are drawn to religious hierarchy. Regardless, all religious leaders should be looked upon with suspicion.

Comparison
I don't comprehend the comparison. Where in Judaism or Christianity is the believer taught to "kill the unbeliever"?

to MOnline read Prager's article below
"Explaining the Arab-Israeli conflict through numbers" - Dennis Prager July 27, 2004

This is a small section taken from his article which gives some interesting facts (with numbers)regarding US foreign policy and the UN. Please archive his name and read its entirety.

Number of U.N. Security Council resolutions on the Middle East between 1948 and 1991: 175
Number of these resolutions against Israel: 97
Number of these resolutions against an Arab state: 4
Number of Arab countries that have been members of the U.N. Security Council: 16
Number of times Israel has been a member of the U.N. Security Council: 0
Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel: 322
Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning an Arab country: 0

camanintx
"maybe we should look beyond actions and consider motives"

Nice point, but motives become irrelevant, it condones a behavior because of emotion, feeling, which is, again, irrelevant.

One only need look at one's behavior and understand the simple truth, when a person acts on something they have the potential to do it again and again - there is no judgement of good/bad, only the action. If you kill someone, you are likely to do it again.

Given that premise, we see the context of it when we say a soldier killed someone in self-defense; a serial killer murdered 8 people, both are of the stated premise, but as a nation we deem killing of one okay and not of the other. No question there and no argument. I don't care why the serial killer murdered, only that he/she did it and now must suffer the consequence of that action.

I don't care why the soldier killed the enemy only that he did it and completed the mission.

On your other point, the reward for anyone doing good, regardless of religion or not, is the satisfaction of being a contributing member of society and doing good because it's good to do and enriches the lives of others. Do you need a god for that? Do you need a bible to tell you that? Do you need the fear of eternal hell to do it and act on your own?

Better or worse than what?
One must compare something with something else. The question, “Does religion make people better or worse?” is no different. In response, we must ask, “Better or worse than what?” Rather than that “what” being perfection, one must compare people in a society with religion to people in a society with no religion at all. We have several examples of the latter in the 20th century: Nazi Germany and the various communist countries. Need we say more?

reply to Lydia
Well, gosh oh mighty I sure am sorry - I should have been more explicit in my example - I prefer a decent and moral atheist as a neighbor rather than an amoral and unethical Christian (they do exist) who thinks he only needs to repent (should he murder me) and all is forgiven. The point is - people who think they only need to repent for murder and that God will forgive them can be very dangerous people. Really LOL

Motivation Matters
As Dennis points out, there are both good a bad people in all religions (and none), so maybe we should look beyond actions and consider motives. If a person is good because they wish to earn God's love or avoid his wrath, does that make them better than an atheist who is good because it is the right thing to do, without thought of any reward?

Lynda
"America doesn't favor Israel anymore than it favors Japan or any other civilized nation."

Who said so? Evidences please? Why would America, then, veto EVERY and ANY condemnation to Israel? Is there no single time Israel would do a mistake?

"Arab and Muslim lands are generally corrupt dictatorships and tyrannies. That is THEIR fault."

What's my fault of being born in country with a tyranny government? And if I demand anything, if I talk, just talk, I can be jailed, killed, or sent to exile? What's the Iraqis fault of living under Saddam? A president who’s willing to let whole cities burn with everything inside… How can I talk, when I might get my mama, daddy, bros and sis killed in front of my eyes for just talking!!
You'd say, it's "aint my fault either!" No body said it's yours, but why did you support them? Why did you pay so much to Saddam when fighting Iran? Why, when you reached to Saddam in 1991, didn't take him to justice? Why didn't you put pressure on them? Because you benefit from them being there, you forgot? Gulf-Oil-Rich countries, ah?
How can a poor, week, siege population do if their government owns everything, and is willing to destroy everything to remain in power? Don't blame the victim! Please!

BTW....
When an individual reaches an understanding of true moral value and generosity of "spirit", one no longer needs the "parental" guidance of a "god", you understand to the very core of yourself good/bad, choice, responsibility, accountability and the consequences of your actions, THIS is truly evolving and "leaving" the metaphorical "nest".

Character is who you are when no one else is watching. (author unknown, too many claim it)


Quo Vadis?
ScottG writes: "(Just a)Thought...You are mistaken in that belief. Any "Christian" who goes around committing evil isn't really one."

At least not a PRACTICING Christian. Once baptized, always a Christian no matter how good or how bad.

Scott: "Now everyone sins, but no real Christian would willingly commit sins just because he or she thinks there's no need to worry about the consequences."

Sure they do, all the time. We all do. We are all sinners. They may be venal, little sins that we never think detract from our focus on Christ. They may even be mortal sins, whose fountainhead is first, the sin of theological pride, in which one places himself and his needs before those of God and second, presumption, in which one presumes that God will automatically forgive whatever had been done.

Scott: "It is written that Christ died to atone for all sin for all time. Salvation is possible even for the worst of us."

Amen. Because He is Infinitely Perfect Love, God will forgive every sin a person has committed, no matter how heinous. However, because He is Infinitely Perfect Justice, God cannot forgive you unless and until you sincerely ASK for forgiveness from the depth of your heart. Makes sense. One can only be forgiven his sins if he wants to be forgiven. Hence, the so-called "sin against the Holy Spirit" (final impenitence)that Christ said was the only sin that could not be forgiven.

For an illuminating explanation of this, read the parable of the Prodigal Son, a perfect summary of the relationship between God and Man.

As long as the young man stayed away from his father's house there was nothing his father could do for him. He knew that he could return hom anytime he wished - all he had to do was humble himself and ask forgiveness. Eventually, he did. And he was forgiven by a father who was overjoyed to see his son again.

Note the anger and resentment of the young man's older brother, who never betrayed or hurt his father as did the younger brother. Jesus warns us not to be resentful of those whom the Lord welcomes back to the fold - regardless of their transgressions - but to celebrate that what was once lost is now found, what was given up for dead is very much alive.

Ultimately, you get what you truly want. Your treasure is truly where your heart is. If you choose God over yourself and ask to be forgiven you will be forgiven. If you truly WANT to go to Heaven you will get there.

And there is a difference between saying I "want" a certain thing and I "would like to have" a certain thing. For example, I would like to be a millionaire. But I don't really WANT to be a millionaire, because if I truly WANTED it, I'd be working my arse off trying to make as much money as I possibly could.

Many people would certainly "like" to go to Heaven. Who wouldn't? But how many people truly "want" to get there? How many are willing to make the arduous trek through this life on a narrow, winding, bumpy, hazardous road? How many are willing - as the Master commanded - to pick up their crosses and follow Him? As we plod on through our lives how often do we stop and ponder the question: Quo Vadis?

In the legend, Peter is said to have fled Rome in fear of his impending execution. On the road he saw a vision of Christ carrying a cross and walking toward the city. He asked the Lord, "Quo vadis, Domine?" (Where are you going, Lord?)

Jesus responded, "To be crucified again in your place." He then vanished, and in shame Peter returned to Rome to face his executioners, requesting that he be crucified up-side down, because he did not deserve whatever dignity there was in a normal crucifixion.

Because He respects your free will, God will not compel you to come to Heaven. He can only entreat you to do so. The choice is yours. If you really don't want to go, you don't have to go. No one will force you - indeed, no one CAN force you.

Those who go to Hell aren't thrust or thrown there by some angry, vengeful God. They went there of their own accord, by their own choice. After all, Jesus did say, "Ask and it will be given you." In effect it's not so much that they went to Hell as it is they REFUSED to go to Heaven.

Quo vadis, amicus?

The Gospel
The Gospel has been blamed for "Holy Wars" and other evils throughout its history. Anyone may abuse a verse or chapter here and there and claim the teaching is on their side. When the the teaching of the Gospel is taken in its totality, from Genesis through Revelation, there can be no doubt that no one living for the past two thousand years has ever had an edict from God to do harm to anyone in His name.

A Christian is one who follows and behaves as Christ did. When one ceases to do this he is no longer a Christian but simply an erring brother in need of repentance. Just as Christ spoke there are many who claim to be His but do not the things He has asked.

All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory; many glory in obvious evil and feel no shame. Fortunately, more continue seeking after His grace, see their error, confess and repent of their ways and increase in goodness toward all.

The Gospel is still the greatest document for GOOD the world has ever known.

My personal request to all is to simply read it for yourself. Read it as you would any great book, plain and simple, word by word, sentence by sentence, and so forth. It is easier than most people think. Just gently let the words fill your mind. It can be most refreshing.

GEM



MOnline
I am glad for your post. It clarifies much.

Your view that the problems of the Arab/Muslim are directly a result of Western/US/Christian/jewish influence is bunk!

If the US had said to the Saudis "We want to buy your oil, Therefor you must conform to the Universal Commecial Code, you must allow Christian churches on your land, you must give the people a say in the government, you must allow women greater personal freedom etc." Then we would be guilty of disrespecting the culture of Arabs and seeking to destroy it.
If we leave the culture alone, we are "supporting dictatorship". (You admit that the political climate of Islamic nations is rotten. It is home-grown in conformance with the teachings of the Prophet.) A no-win situation. No matter what we do, we are wrong and responsible for the Middle East being a land of losers.
Islam has existed for 1500 years. It was spread by the sword far more than any other religion. Murder and coertion brought the word of the Prophet to Egypt, Persia and beyond. It was not the inherent beauty of this set of beliefs which converted much of the world. I daily thank God fot Charles Martel.

Good try, but it is the same old whine of under achievers everywhere. ("It's the white guy's fault I can't get my act together.")

Please come back and post single thoughts which can be discussed specifically.

My apologies
I should have spell-checked before posting.

Oiy! What a topic!
I'm of the belief that religion exists to help those with confused values/morality to adjust their understanding of the life around them. To utilize religion for anything other than a structural foundation for creating a strong sense of character is to demean it's historical value.

There is no one god; no one religion. In research and questioning, people come into religion through either intense lonliness(need to feel part of something)intense dramatic event(need to feel connected)or indoctrinated(no choice).

Through these pathways one cannot "find" religion, Jesus, God, whatever, one can only connect to a sense of self that moves to a place of understanding the value of action/reaction, good/bad, choice/consequence, but its tactic for aquiescence is from weakness, despair, manipulation or control. Keep in mind, if someone does not give you a choice to believe or not believe, they are manipulating and controlling you. Instilling fear based on not believing, to be damned to eteranl hell, etc. is a further example of this control.

The bible and other books like it(not the Qur'an) talk in parables to example ideas of goodness/badness to help those create a moral structure for themselves by which to live.

BUT - this is only one way of creating that moral structure. MANY, MANY, MANY millions of people never turn to the bible, never turn to a god, never turn to a church, who are law abiding, decent, kind, generous individuals who respect others, themselves and the world around them and do good because good is good to do.

The problem is that religion has moved to a place of dictating how we should ALL live. It attempts to bring its opinions into a society that stays strong, not by believing in some god, but by believing in some good.

If you weren't a good person before, "finding" Jesus won't change that, you are who you are, it takes courage, change of action, understanding and education to move one's self to a higher moral ground and "managing" who you are, if that's discovered in part, through a bible, through a novel, through a movie, a tv show, a debate, then who's to say it's right or wrong, it merely is the vehicle by which the indiviual assimilates a higher level of evolution within his/her self.

Religion, I offer to you, too often is utilized to wrap one's self in the blanket of self-righteouness, deeming only correctness based on it's values and morals, without regard to the evolving world around it. If you are a control freak who thinks they're always right, you'll love religion because it gives you the right, in your mind, to tell others they are wrong and as such, act out of that belief to the extent of disregard for others in life who do not believe as you do. This is exampled in our political landscape and the many who tout religion as the morality for legislation and laws.

Lydia
If a murderer can't be saved then Moses is in hell right now. So is everyone else, for that matter, since you become a murderer by being angry for wrong reasons.

Christ's question to Nicodemus...

“Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?” [John 3:10]

That is, from the Old Testament Scriptures these things are evident and you should know them…

MUSLIMS MUST NOT
Be very proud of their religion if they feel it necessary to cover their heads and faces when committing atrocities against fellow human beings. If followers of the Muslim faith find it acceptable for their members to cut off heads of innocent people, and commit cowardly terrorist crimes in the name of Allah, they need to realize that their religion will NEVER be accepted in the United States, and they need to take themselves and their beliefs elsewhere. Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views and opinions.
Heads Need To Roll

Spirtual Health Club
There is a reason that it is called "practicing" when one observes the traditions of a religion. All non-pagan religions promote a covenantial relationship with a power greater than one's self, and eschew contractual and sacrificial relationships.

Religions also differentiate between laws, the lowest standard of behavior, and principles, standards of behavior that we aspire to. The Ten Commandments are not a set of laws, but a set of principles that when we aspire to follow lead us closer to being less selfish and living as if we are not god.

Anyone can say they believe in God, just as anyone can say they go to the health club. Just showing up is never enough. You've got to at least try!

What is Christianity?
It seems Dennis is confused about what Christianity is. He seems to talk about religion as opposed to the regenerated person who has God living in him that is the true Christian. Teachings, laws and customs are only outward and often contrary to the condition of the heart.

The Jews were offered the Kingdom of God, but their preference for and attachment to their “religion” prevented them from being used as a nation (the Bible does say that a remnant will accept Jesus).

For the first few centuries Christianity spread under the most difficult conditions. This was because the power of a transformed life was undeniable. In the fourth century Christianity became the official religion and drew in many unbelievers and pension-seeking priests of other religions. Christianity has been difficult to gauge ever since.

Religion often keeps people from God. Without God, the heart cannot be changed. It is sad when the religion of Christianity keeps people from becoming true Christians or prevents Christian from drawing closer to their Lord.

Consider churches that deny that the Bible is true. They cripple any Christians who are trying to grown in their faith. Churches seem to focus on activities, programs, and events and fail completely to show people how to draw closer to God in a personal and real way.

Benefit comes to the individual not from religion, but from God. It is not a God that is pleased with how good we are or what good we have accomplished, it is about a God that so loved us, He sent His Son to pay the price of sin for the whole world. We get the forgiveness of sin and the love of God flowing through us to others.

Religion is about teaching, rules, and achievement. Christianity is about becoming a new person through the power of God. Liberalism has been called secularized Christianity (people thinking they should “do good” without knowing how or why). The same problem exists for those who would follow the religion of Christianity instead of the person of Christ.

Re: ONE part says a lot here
Here you are, from all over the world, all Muslims condemned it:
http://www.cair.com/html/911statements.html


Re: Good discussion..
Thanks chunk for your valuable comment..
Here is an article I wrote in my blog, shows differences between violence and Islam http://monline.wordpress.com/papers-and-columns/islam-versus-terrorism/

For the Israeli/Lebanese/Palestinian aspect: I said it would require so much discussion, and the topic here is different. I put it just to show you how Arabs/Muslims beleive, and how it's a factor in creating violence..

From my prospective, from someone who lived here and there, and heard from you and them: both have "rights" and "wrongs," both take shares in the blame.. Likewise you think you get the whole truth, they think too... There are aspects of the facts, you too, don't know... See this: http://monline.wordpress.com/2006/08/21/peace-propaganda-and-the-promised-land-must-see/

Yet, I'm not sided against Israel, but I think it can solve so many problems if it gives up some of its policies, like giving Sheba Farms back to Lebanon, etc., that they have no cause to attack whatsoever in the name of resistance.
frankly, Palestinians/Israeli conflict is too complicated, and problems have been accumulating since forever, and a real negotiations should take place... I call for peace; it's easy to talk, I know.. I think the only solution if everybody gets out of his/her box and really study the others' claims.. for you: Why would any bomb himself into a pizza place? Just for fun? for God's sake? No... Study the root causes, and solve them.. I think security policies and war (i.e. The Wall) between the two might solve the symptoms but not the problem. We need a real solution..

ONE part says a lot here
If you could prove #1: "Most clerks condemned terrorist attacks against the state, and condemn the on going against everywhere; you don’t hear it because you don’t read Arabic; what’s translated to you is what the translator want you to hear"

We all know that our MSM tells us ONLY what it WANTS us to hear. I can accept that yours may do the same. BUT give ANY examples of 'clerics?' who CONDEMNED TERRORIST ATTACKS! If you say "Most" than you MUST be able to give a couple, (with translation, of course.)

I would even accept that you will NOT give names or EXACT places (out of fear, your #3). But general ideas of where. And what was said/written.

Until then, I remain highly sceptical.

Correction
The next to last paragraph of my first post has a typo -- the name i referenced should rad Brigitte Gabriel. Gabria

Know Thy Neighbor
catattack-
When people try to sound dramic, like my christian neighbor might kill me, consider that you are labeling this neighbor as a christian, true christians do'nt go around killing anyone, all though christians are known for trying to kill evil, usually throgh the living word of God. I consider myself a christian, although I don't attend chruch regualary, but do have a church of choice, got married there, my childrens batisms. I pray everyday and take comfort in our God and Jesus. I truely wish all would except him as lord, because he is faithful and loving and I just know very soon we will need Jesus, Once this whole world sets us free.

Good Discussion
MOline has written the best piece I have ever seen revealing the prospective of an Islamic moderate. Very enlightening indeed. I do wish to comment on this one point he makes and I Quote
"3. US foreign Policy:
NO TWO in the Arab world disagree on this: “American foreign policy is biased.” Count how many time the US vetoed for Israel; Count how many houses were destroyed by Israel; Count how many kids/women/elderly killed by Israel; Why did the US support the killing of the Lebanese. Yet, nobody have any right to resist?! This is a Biggy – I’m not coming to discuss its validity because it has been there for years, and it will take us years arguing; this is the truth here, period."

I am sure that because all infomation is controlled by the govenrments under islamic control, that the fact that it is NOT the POLICY of Israel to "kill kids/women/elderly" The fact is that in Lebenon and else where Israel is not fighting against a unformed national army but against Al Quida and others who are niether uniformed nor part of a state orgainized army. Thier "enemy" is often the kid, sometimes a woman and ocassionally an elderly person -- who can not be distinguished from the general population. Israel is not the one conducting beheadings, forcing others to convert to Judiasm, strapping bombs to their children and blwoing up pizza parlors. When the US supports Israel it is because they are defending themselves from this kind of slaughter.

I know the majority of Arab/Islamic people hae been told otherwise and do not see this as fact. But outside their nations the facts are plain.

Checkout brifitte Gabriels web site and watch and listen to HER interview from a personal prospective about how Israelies treated her a Muslum. http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/

This is the kind of story that needs to be given to the Arab/Islamic world. But thats a pipe dream at best, I think.

It depends
Like most answers to most serious questions, it depends on what you consider a religion and on the person involved. Like Jesus' parable of the sower, the message of a religion doesn't necessarily take root or remain rooted. There are temptations along the way. Even the leaders of the religion are tempted by the influence they have.

I think that every real religion, if we could go back far enough, originated with a revelation, but human beings lose that revelation through disobedience, and most often it gets the academic treatment, as Christianity has in most modern divinity schools. That's why most of the three major religions, Judaism, Christian and Islam require some kind of approved "education," and end up being domninated by clerics, meaning those who have studied the literature and are thus qualified to interpret the original revelation, indeed in most cases to edit that revelation.

They may be wise or dull, faithful or cynical, humble or proud, but if they fail to seek further understanding from the original source, they won't get it right.

It's up to your inclination
Everyone is born with an inclination, or a character if you like, that will aim him toward a certain way of dealing with life. Whatever religion or morality, or political party or family arrangement for that matter, a person chooses to affiliate with is affected by the person's character. A Christian who is by nature loving, forgiving, anxious to please and willing to shoulder burdens will be a different sort of Christian from a person who is by nature judgmental, bitter, cranky, unbending and quick to jump all over people.

A person looking for something to use to beat othesr with can use Christianity, Judaism, Islam or atheism as his big stick. Likewise, a person who inclines toward loving kindness can use his religion as a vehicle.

This is not saying that a person is a prisoner of his nature or inclination. God knows what kind of machine you are driving and He's going to judge your journey not by what you drove but by how you tried to get that vehicle to the end of the race. Have a read of the parable of the Prodigal Son and take it in -- if you have an inclination toward riotous living, you may still be in the end a better Christian than your brother who never put a foot wrong all his life -- because you know how hard it can be when the crunch comes down.

The case for Islam
I have been surfing this website for a long while, and this would be my second time to post a comment.. I liked your article Mr. Dennis, and I feel this reply is an obligation, and a respond to your call.. I know few of my type come here, and to you all, so I call for respectful, constructive and thoughtful dialog.

I call myself a moderate, Muslim, and I agree with almost all what you said in your article, beside the “100 of million of Muslims,” but I’m not here to discuss it… I am an ordinary, not a religious leader or anything, but I observe my religious obligations most often. I am here to talk about, “Is the violence road, some Muslims choosing to take, originated from the religion itself?” I know it would be an endless debate if we would talk about everything in one thread.

I lived in the US for some 2 years, in the Bible belt area, and I had many dialogs with my fellow Christians, where I came to the conclusion that “Islam” is just a reflection to Judaism and Christianity; and it tend to be more closer to each one, than each-one to one-another; I think Islam is in the cross road between the two.. It’s closer to Judaism though, since it’s a law-based religion… If can read you a countless list of things Islam advocate that make you be among the 90% of good Muslims, and make you be a better human; but lets just concentrate on the bad parts…

I think: “Chances are, if Judaism or Christianity are put under the same political, geographical, historical, social, and economical factors the Islamic world has been undergoing, there would be no less violence originated from them such as of Islam now!”

Don’t take me wrong: I AM NOT JUSTIFYING VIOLENCE BY ANY MEAN.. I condemn all the actions of by the so-called Islamic terrorists, and don’t take any of my words as justifications to that: I’m here giving you the “what/why” that you were asking for.

Throughout history, Christians and Jews have committed killings what equate, if not exceed, that done by Muslims, using the same holy books that’re giving us wisdom and guidance now. Twisting words, ignoring the historical background of the text, sticking to the literal meaning of the text, ignoring political and cultural complexes of that time, etc. are all techniques fanatics use/have used/and still using to support their barbaric actions. Yet Muslim fanatics are to realize that this is WRONG like their counterparts already realized.

Let’s address the case of Islam… If we trace the root-cause of the creation of the neo-Islamic-extremism, specifically the Wahabism, back to Muhammad Abdul-Wahhab’s movement in Saudi Arabia in the ‘70s. This movement called for sticking to the religious texts, and intended to return people for the righteous path by strictly observing religious obligations. The movement was fully supported by Al-Saud, the regime in Saudi Arabia, to concentrate people’s minds on religion instead of politics. The movement called of obeying the “Ameer Almua'mneen”- the leadership of the Islamic community, that’s supposedly Al-Saud. From that time, until recent days, brain washing was the mainstream strategy to divert people’s mind from oil, economy, and politics (Money and Power).

Al-Saud practiced full control over the information flow, education; and specifically religious practices. Islamic Law/rituals and physical practices were on the surface, and other aspects of the religion like morals and ethics were almost ignored. Religious intolerance reached its peek in the ‘90s, where Wahhabism surrounded every aspect of people’s life. Differences in faith were hardly tolerated, and minorities were harshly discriminated against.

The time came, and the war against the Soviet Union/Communism in Afghanistan and Yemen took place; Al-Qaeda had fertile grounds to recruit those who know NOTHING about the outer world; who have been raised to just obey their lord. Yet, it’s the time to obey and fight for his sake, to get to the promised heaven. Lessons are taught, until now, in Mosques that the only righteous path is “sticking to the text,” and killing for that sake is a mandate; such as killing the Shiite/infidels/etc. Of course, military training and weapons were supplied by the “to-benefit-from-this” Saudi governments and the west. Al-Qaeda got stronger and stronger, and when won the war, new agendas were born, and a new vision: “To convert people to the right bath, Islam,” and this clarifies the recent using “force Convert” phenomenon.

Here I put some bulk of the blame on the West for supporting them from day 1, and supporting the Saudi regime; without which such existence would have never been possible. Now that they realized their mistake, too late!

Of course, these groups have been growing for a long time and reached everywhere in the world. Using their religious teaching classes-brain washing, especially to kids, those groups were able to recruit even British-born fellows!

Yet, many factors helped and are helping directly and indirectly in the creation of such mentalities, or helping those terrorists to recruit: (Whether you agree or not on these, it’s very much valid here- I’m giving you the facts widely beleived)

1. The Control on Information:
Many Arab countries practice full control on curricula, internet access, Radio/TV stations, Libraries, Books imports, etc.

2. Oppressive Governments in the Arab/Islamic world.
Governments have been ruling forever! They are the judge and the police! People have no right to speak, or whatsoever. Those governments, mostly supported by the west-Saudi etc., get the millions of $$... Regular people blame who? Al-Qaeda has a “just case” for fighting who? Analyze this!

3. US foreign Policy:
NO TWO in the Arab world disagree on this: “American foreign policy is biased.” Count how many time the US vetoed for Israel; Count how many houses were destroyed by Israel; Count how many kids/women/elderly killed by Israel; Why did the US support the killing of the Lebanese. Yet, nobody have any right to resist?! This is a Biggy – I’m not coming to discuss its validity because it has been there for years, and it will take us years arguing; this is the truth here, period.

4. The victimization mentality.
Individual rights are lost; people, in no way, would ever dream to become presidents, because “military” is used against the people. “I will give you a million bucks if you demonstrate in Saudi Arabia/Jordan/Syria/etc. against the government!” Who is to blame? You! Because you supported them!

The list can go on, but just to give you an Idea. Now you would ask, so what’s the part of Islam that supports the creation of violence? My answer to you is, it’s the same part that exists in EVERY religion, and it’s the same part that led your religions to be violent in the 1500 and on; it’s the helping verb! Every religion advocates the supremacy of its doctrine. Every religion advocates the righteous path, and the leading to heavens... Every religion has the tendency of defending its practitioners if been fought. Taking Islamic textures and pointing at the “kill the infidels” only is not a valid point; because you take it out of its context. It says in other parts, too, “You are not better than them,” “You don’t force others to believe what you believe,” “God ONLY would judge those who believe what you don’t believe.”

I can justify my killing in the name of Yawah/Allah/Jesus/God if used any of the texts, by taking verses out of its historical, social, political, etc. background. What justified the killing of Jesus? What justified the discrimination against blacks/minorities? What justified the crusades? What justified the all the massacres in Christians before the roman era? What justified the hatred against Jews throughout history? Misreading religious texts…

Last but not least, I want to talk about “why Moderates don’t stop them!” 1) Most clerks condemned terrorist attacks against the state, and condemn the on going against everywhere; you don’t hear it because you don’t read Arabic; what’s translated to you is what the translator want you to hear 2) Moderates think KNOW those are not a product of the religion, but “Working for political agendas.” 3) Moderates are afraid if they talk, they/their families might be threatened 4) only extreme news are shown on your news outlets, so what moderates do doesn’t really get the attention. 5) “Undifferentiating resistance from terrorism,” by the west. Almost all Muslims think that the west mixes between the two; and most Muslims look at west as unfair; and “they deserve what they get!” 6) Many Muslims see the west as an attacker to Islam, not Islamic-Terrorist who he supported/created, because of his unfair policies, and instances like “the Dubai Ports,” etc.

I think I went too far.. That just to answer some of your question.. Again, I would appreciate if discussion be constructive; I’m not an enemy, I’m here to know the truth too!

True Peace. True Christian
I know in my heart that being a Christian makes one a better person, for if you are a true christian you have a desire to to show God's love by way of: Not judging others, this does not mean not to reconize the evil they do, if you see that, but to put it in God's hands, and pray for them, for yourself and for all of God's children. Also being a christian gives one faith, wisdom and insight, My daughter just returned from Iraq- I prayed to Jesus, to be with her and watchover her, I prayed for all the troops and for President Bush. I pray daily that God's Will- Will be done on earth as it is in heaven. I know non-christians may think its corney, but I have a sense of faith, even when I am struck with all the earthly concerns and garbage that a christian knows all to well when we don't live the living word- it just will never be complete-life. I have always prayed and God has always been faith-ful, teaching me patience, love, forgiveness, mercy and giving me strength to see it through. No christians are far from perfect and we all fall short of the glory of God. But when one practices The Living Word- One finds Hope, Faith, Love, Mercy and Good. It's so much better to have a softened heart and reach out to those who longs for the mercy and peace each life can take comfort in. To become a new and improved person, is'nt that what humans spend alot of time and money for??? God offers this for all, the poor ,the rich ,the beautiful ,and the not so-beautiful. The one truley wonderful, grand gift of being a chritian is once you have that holy spirit in you- change for the truley better is a given- the time it takes you to become a true christian depends on you- but praise Jesus because once the transforamtion takes place your eyes are open, and then the light can shine... Praise Jesus!!!!!

tato's comments
You have touched on a subject that is thought provoking and has the ability to create an inordinate amount of discussion, the dark side versus the bright side of human values. It is true that some people will always be good and some people will always be bad. Is it personal qualities that are gene driven or environmental factors or a combination of both? That has always been the argument. I personally believe is a combination of both for most of us, and an extremely small percentage I believe it is genetic and no punishment or reward will change them. As for the rest of humanity, I believe religion does make the difference as to whether they are good or evil, weak or strong, kind or selfish.

Admittedly, people will never perfect the higher qualities because we are still people, but there is such a thing as good and evil. Most religions touch the emotional aspect of our characters before our intellect is impacted and in a greater degree. Based on anthropological research it would appear that the need to worship is something higher than ourselves is universal, therefore intrinsic to the human psyche.

Where the heart is the mind will follow. How many of any religion is good or evil because of that religion is a question that is impossible to answer, but to dismiss the idea that religion cannot make someone good or evil to suggest that there is no such thing as good or evil. We must judge these actions by some standard and the one most of us in the western world have accepted, as a universal standard, is the Christian/Judaic ethic based on Biblical text. That text clearly showed actions that occurred as a direct result of religious belief. Many of those actions were evil. That makes those who committed those actions evil. That makes them evil because of their religion.

Each religion has a claim
on its adherent that it is the "only" way to Heaven. Moslems (Muslims or Islamists) do have a passage or two in the Koran (Quran) about forcing people to recognize Allah and fighting infidels. Christianity was a warrior faith for St. Augustine. Jewish people have had their Six Day War and Masada. Peace takes more work and faith than war, as seen since 09-11-01.

tato - very interesting insight
You've written some thought provoking questions we should be asking ourselves regarding our relationship with God and religion. But I think you meant to say "bad" instead of "bed".

my preferred neighbor
I'd rather live next door to a decent and moral atheist rather than a Christian that believes Jesus will forgive him for murdering me should he decide to do so.

is the title question right?
For quite a long time I'm trying to understand why we tend to mix religion with a "dark side of human nature". In other words: why we all tend to ascribe responsibility for our individual decisions to outside factors and social phenomenons like religions.

This mixing is what Mr. Prager seems to be doing in his article. This is also exactly what violent and semi-violent religious extremists are trying to project on us: that God and His divine will is the ultimate cause of their malevolence.

I should rather ask: why we tend to mix 1)religion, 2)"dark side" of human nature, AND 3)deep, individual relationship with God.

Sincere endeavour to develop relationship with God is a goal of truly religious man. "Dark side" is conquered in such endeavours. And goal of religion is to help on such embarkment. The problem starts when men is not truly religious, and his goal (deliberately or not) is to strenghten his "dark side", with religion as a handy tool, or just a smoke screen.

In this straighten perspective, the title question should be: Does religion cause people to develop deep relationship with God or to strenghten their "dark side"?

The answer is (surprisingly) easy: religion does neither. What makes people better or worse is their use of God-given free will. To suggest that responsibility for being good or bed rest outside, is nothing but another hue of above mentioned problem of mixing.

Why then we tent to indulge in mixing such loosely connected ideas? Obvious reason is that by ascribing responsibility to religion instead to ourself, we can feel less guilty when we are "bed" and choose to hate an individual or any group. Another obvious one is to add more authority to OUR "bed" decisions and actions when we support them with religion and scriptures. Less obvious reason is the ability to(pre)judge whole groups of people, believing that it is just religion and not individual choices that make them what they are.

The last one is subtle but popular method for establishing worldviews, used by simplistic minds. More proactive approach would be to avoid generalized judging and to be open and personal. It is more spiritual, but it is also much more difficult.

So, for the question: "How many kind and decent Muslims are kind and decent because of Islam, and how many evil Muslims are evil because of Islam?" The answer is also easy: neither.

And question is not motivated by desire to understand, forgive, appreiate or merely inquire.

Religion makes you moral
... but not necessarily good nor decent.

"Goodness" and "decency" are universal, regardless of personal belief. An Atheist may be "good" in the sense that he does not steal, or slander, or lie, or kill. He may be decent by being generous, loving, kind, and ethical. Both of those things - goodness and decency - deal with how we treat others, and why. For the Atheist, he does it because what benefits society also benefits him as a member of that society; he may feel, at a personal level, a need to follow a certain ethical law, but he would not understand it as morality the way we see it.

Morality deals solely with the reasons behind our actions; therefore only a person with a Theistic religion can truly be moral. A Christian or Jew practices "goodness" because his God demands it; a polytheist practices decency to please his gods. Morality deals exclusively with adherence to a moral law; since Atheists deny that such a law exists (since to admit that it does would be to admit that there is Something Beyond this world and matter), they can be good and even decent, and very often are, but they cannot be moral.

Thought...
You are mistaken in that belief. Any "Christian" who goes around committing evil isn't really one. Now everyone sins, but no real Christian would willingly commit sins just because he or she thinks there's no need to worry about the consequences.

It is written that Christ died to atone for all sin for all time. That includes murder. No one sin is really worse than another. Any sin keeps you from Heaven whether lying, or stealing, or mass murder. Saddam and Castro are the most blessed men on the planet although they don't know it. They still live, they can still repent and be saved. Like the moderates who never speak, we know that those two won't, but the opportunity is currently open for them. If they were to repent they would be welcomed into Heaven the same as the holiest follower. That is the essence of true Christianity. Salvation is possible even for the worst of us.

Kind of like the Christian who does evil
but expects to go to heaven because he is 'saved.' Now don't jump me, but I think there are things that being saved - won't save you FROM. Like murder. If you knowingly and coldbloodenly commit murder, I don't see HOW you can be saved, just like that. And I also doubt some of those death row inmates have more than a cursory knowledge of the Bible. They tend to use anyone they can sink their claws into.

All that aside, much evil has been done in the name of all religions. But I do think that more is CONDONED or encouraged by Islam than either of the other two.

But you will not hear from the 'moderates.' We here at TownHall (I think without exception?) Know they won't speak up. Whether thru fear or acceptance doesn't matter. They will NOT speak.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.