Thank you Polly Toynbee for saying what needed to be said about religion .

[non sociopath skin]

In the name of God

Blair has appeased and prevaricated. Now, as the death cult strikes again, he must oust religion from public life

Polly Toynbee
Friday July 22, 2005
The Guardian

Two weeks on, London is stricken once more. The death cult strikes again, unstoppable in its deranged religious mania. This time no deaths but a savage reminder of the unknown waves of demented killers lining up to murder in the name of God.

Whatever they intended, the message was loud and clear: they can and will do this whenever they want and it does indeed spread very real terror. The police have said there are many more of them. The security services have already revealed that they know absolutely nothing.

In the growing fear and anger at what more may be to come, apologists or explainers for these young men can expect short shrift. This is not about poverty, deprivation or cultural dislocation of second-generation immigrants. There is plenty of that and it is passive. Iraq is the immediate trigger, but this is about religious delusion.
All religions are prone to it, given the right circumstances. How could those who preach the absolute revealed truth of every word of a primitive book not be prone to insanity?

Rest at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,16141,1534014,00.html

[donco6]

1. This article could never appear in a US paper

Why? Because some fundie Christian death cult would target the paper and author. Ipso facto - she's exactly right.

[batsauce]

5. Very twisted logic there.

and your argument is not based on what happens here in the real world.

Perhaps the "death cults" are attacking your brain right now. Better grab some foil before they do some real damage.

sorry for the sarcasm.
But that sort of comment can be used to slander a lot of good people, and distracts from from what mainstream America is looking for in American government.

If Democrats are going to change the world, they aren't going to get there by slandering Christians. There are a lot of fundamentalist Christians voting Democrat. You aren't going to get where you're going by sliming them with this sort of broad insulting comment.

[non sociopath skin]

6. Donco6 maybe had a point, though ...

... that no US paper would publish such an article because of the backlash, even if it wasn't actually violent.

The Skin

[batsauce]

11. good point.

But I think that any business has to care to some degree about what its customers think.

And US papers have to make money to keep publishing

[emcguffie]

7. You're confusing fundamentalists with evangelicals.

They're not the same. Evangelicals can be liberals. Fundamentalists basically are not. You can be an evangelical AND a fundamentalist, but it isn't necessary at all.

The fundamentalists are extremists. That's what they are. Same in all religions. Islamic fundamentalists are like Christian fundamentalists.

[batsauce]

10. Unfounded slander.

I know of no "fundamentalist" preacher urging his people to commit suicide for the sake of Christ.

I can find several Imans who preach just that.

Also I think your black and white definitions of who is evangelical and who is fundamentalist not reality based. There are actually more shades of grey involved here. I suspect that you have decided in your mind who the "good" Christians and the "bad" Christians are and have developed appropriate labels to justify your stereotyping of large groups of people.

Certainly, in the historical and philosophical development of fundamentalism, the symbiosis with politics has not been present. I do agree that some organizations that could arguably be called fundamentalist have engaged in politics.

This is too sad. the use of temporal government to promote Christan ends has just about always backfired.

[donco6]

22. Nice try.

Yes, if they're urging their people to commit suicide - well, they must not be fundamentalist! Tada! It's never "us" that do these bad things - it's always "them." Almost dodged that one, but oops!

"I do agree that some organizations that could arguably be called fundamentalist have engaged in politics." Really? That's big of you. Let's talk about the Inquisition. Or maybe Calvin's Geneva - that was a big hit with folks! Or more recently, the Moral Majority, or the Christian Coalition. I seem to recall Pat Robertson running for President a few years back.

I don't see religion benefitting anyone, anywhere in the present day. In fact, the whole current practice is so repugnant to me and everyone I know that I would question my friends' mental state should they decide to convert.

[emcguffie]

29. Well, I didn't want to go on and on...

I don't think it's black and white at all. But there is a general tendency there. Hey, I'm not accusing all Christian fundamentlists of being hate filled terrorists. But they can be very extreme in their view of Christianity, such as no music, no dancing, no card playing... And somehow that kind of extreme faith seems to make some people very judgmental of others, who do those things.

Many southern fundamentalists get downright nasty about those who don't agree with them. I think the fundamentalist outlook supports extremism. No, fundamentalists don't all become terrorists. The Wahabists (if I spelled that right) aren't all terrorists, either. But they sure do produce a lot of terrorists, who are willing to die and go to heaven in the name of God. I don't think they think they're full of hate, I think they think we are, and that they are religious martyrs. I think it's a point of view thing, IMHO.

But it's the most extreme kinds of religion that cause SOME PEOPLE to go off on a tangent that probably has nothing to do with the religion to begin with. Where do you think they come from?

Evangelicals are not of necessity extreme in their faith. I've seen a number of them speak out against the hijacking of Christianity that is going on. I haven't seen anyone who considers him/herself a fundamentalist do that.

[donco6]

8. Are you part of a "fundie death cult?"

Like, say, David Koresh's Waco Whackos? Or Jim Jones' Kool Aid Kartel? It's obvious that they actually exist, and I have no doubt they would react in the same way as some Muslim fatwah-levelling nutcase.

I have no use for fundies of any sort.

[batsauce]

12. The problem here

is that 99% of the groups you would call fundamentalist would deny any connection to these groups.

I don't think it is fair to allow the fringe group define the larger group.

[donco6]

20. Interesting.

So when the fundie Christians use gay pride parades to define all of gaydom, that's OK, but when I condemn fundie whackos that's unfair because it paints Christianity in a bad light?

That sounds pretty unfair to me, too.

[Kerrytravelers]

2. Very well said indeed,

"See how far-right evangelicals have kidnapped US politics and warped its secular, liberal founding traditions. "

:applause:

"Those who believe they alone know the only way, truth and life will always feel justified in doing anything in its name. You would, wouldn't you, if you alone had the magic answer to everything?"

:applause:


Now, as a liberal Christian, I'm glad she said this:

"Moderates of these faiths may be as gentle as the carefully homogenised Thought for the Day preachers."

:applause:


And I really liked this:
"It is time now to get serious about religion - all religion - and draw a firm line between the real world and the world of dreams. "

:applause:

--------------------------------

Not all religious people think their way is the only way. Many of us feel our way is just one of many ways, that there is no one faith because in a world this complex, only ONE way of seeing things is, quite frankly, too simplistic.

Personally, I think the creator (call it God, call it whatever) manifersts itself in various ways to different people. Some see a more earthly manifestation that roots itself in logic and science. I find this reasoning in many of our Athiest friends. THere are others that see a creator all around, that the idea of a Trinity makes sense to them.... these would be your Christians. There are way too many top go into here, but you get my drift.

When someone claims to have the one and only true answer, I always know they aren't really feeling that cosmic connection that is part of us all, but rather using this connection and twisting it in a way to control everyone else. An example of that can be found in our White House.

[non sociopath skin]

3. As someone who considers himself a spiritual person but one who ...

... subscribes to no organised religion, I find Polly's views and yours absolutely compatible, KT.

The Skin

[Kerrytravelers]

4. Thank you!

If Polly and I ran the world, what a peaceful place this would be!

[batsauce]

9. It would be kind of interesting

to see what kind of world would have developed if the pagan Egyptians had succeeded in wiping out the Jews.

If the Jewish insistance on concrete unchanging laws had not become a part of western culture, would Science had developed?

If the Jewish insistence on a God who ruled by justice had not developed, would we be more like the cultures wherein the poor and powerless have no innate rights?

If the Christains had not retained retained the hard won knowledge of the the previous centuries, would we have ever left the dark ages?
A book, "How the Irish Saved Civilization" describes in some detail how Christians preserved this knowledge.

We live in a nation full of schools and hospitals and charities started by Christian organizations. Would any of those still exist?
How many schools an hospitals and charities have been started by Hindus and Buddists and Zorastorains and Wiccans?

------------
Yes Christians, and more sadly, Christian churches have done bad things. How can it be otherwise in any group of human beings. But I think that by any objective measure, Christians have done enormously more good than bad.

I would rather live in a country based on Christian traditions than any other country, especially if I was a woman, a minority or disadvantaged.

[GOPFighter]

13. Much of what you write makes sense, but...

You state that Christian churches have done enormously more good than bad. I believe there are genuinely good people in this world who have huge hearts, are courageous, and selfless. Over the span of history these people have done much good under the auspices of the church. I would be willing to bet every religion has a large number of these good people who work under the auspices of their religion. There's even plenty of anecdotal evidence that there are many good people among non-religious people. I contend that the good done by Christian churches is done by good people who would do good irregardless of the particular religion.

On the other hand, the bad that is done by Christianity is generally swept under the table and not talked about, thus giving a false score on the good vs. bad scoreboard. Have you ever studied the horrific abuse that has occurred in Catholic orphanages, schools for Indians, homes for wayward girls in Ireland, etc.? I doubt it, but if you look hard you will find plenty of books detail sickening abuse. This of course is not something the church or the popular media is anxious to publicize. (I'm not picking on the Catholic church here, there just happens to be more literature on this topic covering the Catholic schools and homes).

I'm also astonished at your assertion that women, minorities,and the disadvantaged fare better in Christian countries. (You obviously didn't grow up in my Baptist church!). Christianity, even today, teaches that the wife must be subservient to the husband. I contend that equality women enjoy in our society was instigated outside of the church. You may respond that the Christian church accepted the concept of equal rights for women far better than other religions and you would have a good point. As for how well minorities fare under Christianity, you forget that most of the resistance to civil rights for Blacks was mounted from the pulpits of protestant churches (including my Baptist church up north!). The KKK still burns crosses to intimidate Blacks.

Much social progress has been supported in this country by certain Christian churches, but I still contend that a country that is largely influenced on faith in the supernatural is not going to make much progress.

I'm not trying to tear you down, Batsauce. You are obviously a thoughtful, intelligent observer of things religious. I'm only trying to give the other side of the coin as I see it. I'm also fortunate to have the day off to respond in depth to your brief post.

GOPFighter

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. At what point did the Egyptians try to wipe out the Jews?

Yes, Science would have developed without the Jews. Consider what the Greeks did without them. There was a good estimate of the radius of the Earth by Eratosthenes in 230 BC. In fact, an insistence on "concrete, unchanging laws" would tend to hold back science - Galileo's experience being an obvious example.

Democracy developed in Athens, not Jerusalem. The expansion of human rights to everyone has tended to come from deist (American Revolution) or non-religious (Frnech Revolution) movements. Religions, especially large, established ones, have tended to keep the status quo, with a hierarchy.

Much of the Greek and Roman knowledge was maintained and expanded in Islamic countries. India developed the decimal system. China developed many scientific advances. Many schools and charities have been started by Hindus and Buddhists in the countries where they are a significant part of the population.

[mr blur]

15. I'm not singling out anyone, but I see all religions as cults.

So what if hundreds of millions of people are willing to "believe" in Christianity? Doesn't make it any more valid than, say, Scientology. The idea that a man called Jesus died and then rose from the dead is just as bizarre and divorced from Real Life as the idea that an ancient race of aliens came to earth and influenced human history.

Toynbee remarks: "All religions are prone to it, given the right circumstances. How could those who preach the absolute revealed truth of every word of a primitive book not be prone to insanity?"

Absolutely. I read on DU about Creationist Summer Camp. I read what they believe and what they insist YOU believe. These people are lunatics. They want this crap taught in schools because America was "founded on Christian beliefs". No it wasn't - the founders were too smart for that.

London is being bombed in the name of some religion. In the US abortion clinics have been bombed in the name of a different religion. Bush believes that God wanted him to be President and, instead of being laughed out of town, millions of people believe him. It's like some mass hallucination. Even here on DU we get criticised for commenting on religious beliefs. My answer to that is, "You believe whatever you like but don't insist that others are not allowed to react to your beliefs. A belief in some religion doesn't mean that other people have to switch off their brains when talking to you. If you think it does, then the problem is yours, not ours."

[non sociopath skin]

16. In a sense it's about the symbiosis between religion and politics...

... isn't it?

In a sense, unquestioning belief in the "holy writ" cannot but impact on politics to some extent or another. If you see yourself as a custodian of The One True Faith, the bottom line is that you think that an ideal world would be one where Everyone did it Your Way Everywhere.

That's why the Skin, gnarled old cynic that he is, is a vehement opponent of Exact Systems, religious or secular. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.

The Skin

[Benbow]

26. So you are lumping religions in with Africans who murder children

whom they say are "bewitched" or "possessed"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Those are religions too

There was a piece on Newsnight, a couple of weeks ago, showing a Christian minister, in Angola, trying to cure a sick child by throwing 'holy water' at her, saying she was posessed. The child died, because they wer refusing any medicine. Another decided the best way to drive out the demons from a child was by screaming at her for hours, and getting her mother to do the same. The poor child was crying its eyes out, completely bewildered.

I will admit that the Catholic priest also shown was treating children properly - he was running an orphanage where children who had been rejected by their families for 'being posessed' (probably autism, or psychological problems) were cared for properly. But the beliefs of the others were a religion too.

[Benbow]

17. Polly rent-an-opinion Toynbee is conflating religion and ideology

which are not always the same thing. I have read things by Toynbee for 20 years, and I have a very low opinion of what she calls her mind. She is paid to be provocative - whatever the publication, whatever the subject, it seems.

However, substitute "ideology" for "religion" throughout her piece, and it makes more sense, IMV.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Except there are no 'ideological' schools

And I think her main thrust is that state-funded religious schools are divisive, and not a valid way of spending public money. Instead, Blair is keen on having more of them.

Having the state pay for schools allied to one religion encourages the idea that having a religion is the natural thing for a child - when children are not able to consider the philosophical implications of deciding on one religion rather than another.

If we had state schools that were affiliated to one political party, it would be called indoctrination, or even brainwashing. It's the idea that certain countries belong 'naturally' to one religion that encourages the ideas of bin Laden, and people who grow up thinking their primary identification is with a religion, rather than the people they live with (or the whole world) contribute to this.

[non sociopath skin]

19. When there were "ideological" classes ..

... "Socialist Sunday Schools," at the turn of the century, The Kibbo Kift in the 1930s - they WERE roundly criticised, not least by the Religious Establishment.

The Skin

[cheeseit]

23. very well said. n/t

[Benbow]

24. Why are you lumping all faith schools together?

I have been educated in and/or worked in, both Roman Catholic and Anglican schools. RC schools are not all like the worst of the convent schools; and the Anglican faith schools I know, like the best of the RC, emphasise things like caring for one another, doing your best, tolerance, honesty. They do not teach "primary identification with a religion".

How many people commenting on this thread have spent any time, never mind years, in a faith school (that wasn't a convent, in some of which I gather that the regime is inhuman rather than Christian)?

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Yes, I was at a CofE school for 3 years

and inevitably, it assumed that the Anglican point of view was the 'normal' one. After that, I was at private schools, which included Bible study, hymn singing, etc.

I don't think that children should be influenced on the subject of religion at an institution that is responsible for teaching them knowledge. It implies that what you get from the Bible is as valid as what you get from a history book that gets reviewed by other people. You can see how much early indoctrination gets into people's minds - the amount of people who will say "why don't you believe in God" rather than "why don't you believe in gods?" is huge in the western world, because they never consider polytheism. I don't think state money should go to limiting thought in that way.

[cheeseit]

21. fantastic column

I'm not always the biggest Toynbee fan, but I don't think I seriously disagree with a word of that. No doubt she'll catch shit for it like she has in the past, maybe the Islamic Human Rights Commission will try and shut her up again with another "most Islamophobic journalist" nomination...

[Benbow]

25. You are right about that - she is incredibly divisive

in her writings. Usually by ignoring facts that are inconvenient to her thesis of the moment.

[fedsron2us]

30. Relgions may or may not be delusional

but the idea that eliminating their role from public life entirely will prevent people from committing acts of terror in general, and suicide bombings in particular, does not really stand up to much examination. The current waves of attacks in London may be driven by Islamic fervour but their have been plenty of similar incidents in history where the perpetrators have not have had religious motives. For example, the Tamil Tigers have made liberal use of suicide bombings in their campaign against the Sri Lankan government but this conflict is underpinned by longstanding ethnic, cultural and linguistic divisions on that island rather than diferent opinions over matters of religious belief.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4677533.stm

There have been plenty of apologists for terror over the years who have had no religious beliefs or have been atheists. For example, late nineteenth century anarchists hated the concept of organised religion, priests etc yet used language not that dissimilar to modern Islamic militants to call for random acts of violence to encourage the collapse of a social and political system that they felt to be hopelessly corrupt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed

Anarchists even went so far as to describe any activists who died in the performance of acts of terror or subsequently at the hands of the authorities as 'martyrs'. Terrorists, such as Emile Henry, who blew up the Cafe Terminus at Paris's Gare Saint-Lazare station in 1994 were every bit as ruthless and driven as their modern day Islamic counterpart. All they really lacked was more modern technology to make their attacks as devastating as those seen recently in the UK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Henry

Anyone who wants to investigate this subject could do worse than read the chapter 'The Idea and the Deed" in Barbara Tuchmans book on late 19th Century Europe the 'Proud Tower'.

In my opinion Toynbee's analysis of the situation is way too simplistic but I do have a lot of sympathy for her view that the government should not be funding the creation of more faith based schools because I think that as far as possible religion and the state should be kept separate. The problem is that in the UK this division has not really been defined. Indeed, since the Reformation, the Church and state have been physically embodied in the single person of the monarch. Given this situation British governments can hardly argue that Osama Bin Laden is a deranged mad man for believing in the idea of a Caliph ruling all Muslims when the idea is not that different from the concept at the core of the British constitution . In fact when you sit down and read some of Tony Blair's statements on religious belief, schooling and the role of the state you will soon realise that he is simultaneously trying to promote two completely contradictory views about how the world should be organised. This lack of coherent thinking runs right to the heart of most of the problems that the Labour party have experienced in government.