Religion isn't the solution -- it's the problem

[papau]

"whatever their import to people of faith, ancient religious texts shouldn't form the basis of social policy in the 21st century...Anyone who thinks that terrestrial concerns are the principal source of Muslim violence must explain why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers. They too suffer the daily indignity of the Israeli occupation"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris15aug15.story
Holy Terror
Religion isn't the solution -- it's the problem
By Sam Harris
Sam Harris is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason," published this month. He can be reached at www.samharris.org

August 15, 2004

President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate have failed — for the moment — to bring the Constitution into conformity with Judeo-Christian teachings. But even if they had passed a bill calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, that would have been only a beginning. Leviticus 20:13 and the New Testament book of Romans reveal that the God of the Bible doesn't merely disapprove of homosexuality; he specifically says homosexuals should be killed: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death."

God also instructs us to murder people who work on the Sabbath, along with adulterers and children who curse their parents. While they're at it, members of Congress might want to reconsider the 13th Amendment, because it turns out that God approves of slavery — unless a master beats his slave so severely that he loses an eye or teeth, in which case Exodus 21 tells us he must be freed.<snip>

Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over the present. A social policy based on the Koran poses even greater dangers. Koran 9:123 tells us it is the duty of every Muslim man to "make war on the infidels who dwell around you." Osama bin Laden may be despicable, but it is hard to argue that he isn't acting in accord with at least some of the teachings of the Koran. It is true that most Muslims seem inclined to ignore the Koran's solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the fact that some are not so inclined and that some of them murder innocent people for religious reasons.

The phrase "the war on terrorism" is a dangerous euphemism that obscures the true cause of our troubles, because we are currently at war with precisely a vision of life presented to Muslims in the Koran. Anyone who reads this text will find non-Muslims vilified on nearly every page. How can we possibly expect devout Muslims to happily share power with "the friends of Satan"? Why did 19 well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed, on the authority of the Koran, that they would go straight to paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of human beings so easily explained. And yet, many of us are reluctant to accept this explanation.<snip>

[papau]

1. I disagree with the thrust of the above - but I thought it an interesting

read.

:-)

[Q3JR4]

2. Religion isn't the problem,

it's religious fundamentalists one has to look out for.

[papau]

3. I suspect you are correct.

:-)

[LynneSin]

8. Gandhi was quoted as saying:

the besthing thing about Christianity was Jesus Christ and the worst thing about it were the Christians.

Gandhi was a smart man.

[GOPFighter]

4. Religious leaders owe us an explanation

Why are certain parts of the Bible allowed to be ignored? If the entire Bible is the inspired word of God, shouldn't every word be heeded? Of course we know that the Bible was written by men, inspired by God. If things have changed, why hasn't God chosen someone to write a codicil? I think it's about time for God to appear before us and explain him/herself.

[dancing kali]

7. The bible

as "we" know and some love it, dates back to the Nicene Council in around 360CE (I don't remember the exact year and don't want to take the time to look it up right now). At that time the the question of what books should become the canon texts in the bible was decided. The old testament couldn't be touched - it was already well anchored in Judaic tradition and, more importantly, it was the basis for the teachings of the Nazarene carpenter. They decided that the gospels had to cover the entire life of Jesus - birth - life/teachings - death/resurrection/ascension. Consistency between the books wasn't necessary. This is why the four gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are there and the gospels of the other apostles aren't. There are a whole set of books that got cut out including one of my favourites - the gospel of Thomas - which is concerned with the divine nature of man and doesn't concern itself with the "mundane life of Jesus". I'm not sure of what the criteria for the rest of the new testament was other than that Paul's writings had to be included.

This was done at a time when the church was fighting among itself and declaring each other heretical. The way I look at it, it was the birth of the fundamentalist Christian attitudes that we have to deal with today. The church closed its mind, took the teachings out of the hands of the common person, put it into the hands of the power hungry, and, ever since, used it as an excuse to destroy whoever or whatever was deemed to be a threat.

I believe this was when the Gnostic Christians split from the Roman Church.

I suppose an answer to your question about parts of the bible being ignored is that they've been picking and choosing what parts to cling to (those things that support their agenda) and what parts to ignore (those things that say their agenda is sinful) for centuries... a codicil doesn't need to be written, the missing chapters need to be put back.

I don't want to be around if that codicil does get written or if he shows up. It would probably say something like "you lot got it all wrong, you missed the point, that's it, I'm starting over, kiss your butts goodbye." If one holds to the Judaic/Christian idea of one god - then the nice, old guy, with the flowing white beard, kicking back on the clouds with the angels; is also the bad tempered, plague sending, city smiting deity who made a bet with Satan and proceeded to make some poor schmuck's life miserable. Which one do you think is likelier to show up.

The writings that I mentioned are available in print in a book called, "The Other Bible". I saw it in the Christian philosophy section of a Chapters recently. I found them on the web at the Nag Hammadi site (I no longer have the link - lost when I had to reinstall my operating system).

[istruthfull]

5. Law not grace

The killing was done under law and not grace. I read where someone said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". So many people use religion as means to gain control and power. The word of an old song come to mind, "To many peole have lied in the name of Christ for anyone to heed the call'. Personally, worship who or whatever you want - just don't kill people to do it.

[ladjf]

6. You have made some good points.

You didn't mention the fact that in the Koran, it states that the followers of the "one from Nazareth" should be spared from the killing. I'm sorry that don't remember the exact words but I read it myself.

Perhaps someone who is more familiar with the Koran than I could flesh this out in more detail.

But, I agree with your primary conclusion that Religion is not the solution. It's the problem. (and in more ways than you cited in your post).