Nazism, Communism, and Religion

[three and four]

A religious friend of mine told me that the greatest evils of the 20th century, Nazism and Communism, were expressions of godless societies. Without god, he said, this is what mankind gets up to: genocide, massacres, war, terrible destruction. Therefore he said, we need religion (and god), to keep us on the right track. A very good answer to this is found in Christopher Hitchen’s excellent book, “God is not great”. It goes something like this. The mechanisms at work behind Nazism and Communism are very similar to those you will find in any given religion: An individual is perceived as a “prophet” (Hitler was “Der Führer”: the Guide), Stalin was “the Father of the People”. He stands at the head of a single political party which claims to have the monopoly of truth, and excludes any other parties (this is exactly what sects, cults, churches, and major religious institutions do). The individual is of course expected to accept and believe everything he is told by the state, obey, and give up his own critical judgment (Islam, by the way, means "subimssion", not peace, as someone posted recently). Look at how North Koreans worship their current “Dear Leader” (son of their previous “Great Leader”): it’s absolutely religious. (The need to be praised is very human, is it not? Why would an all-powerful creator of the universe have such a need? How would you feel if you were worshipped by millions of ants??). In all these systems, heresy is severely punished. You get sent to die in the prisons of the Gulag for criticizing the Communist party, or end up in a concentration camp if the Nazis don’t like you. Just as the Inquisition will hunt you down and torture you to death (thank you, Christians) or a fatwa will be issued calling for your execution (thank you, Islam). In all systems, promises are given of a glorious future: heaven, a global socialist revolution, a 1000 year Reich… Conclusion: these man-made systems (religion is also man-made) all work in the same way. And if you get large numbers of people to follow a system that claims to have exclusive access to truth, which is exactly what religious and totalitarian systems do, you are heading for big trouble. So… THINK FOR YOURSELF, DON’T LET ANYBODY OR ANY BOOK TELL YOU HOW TO LEAD YOUR LIFE. A note to “moderates”: it is argued that the vast majority of “moderate” Christians, or “moderate” Muslims would never hurt anybody. This is probably true. There were probably lots of “moderate” Nazis, and “moderate” communists who were also not ready to go out and kill people just for the heck of it. However, BY BEING A “MODERATE” YOU GIVE YOUR SUPPORT TO A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS THE EXTREMISTS TO DO THEIR THING. If all “moderates” just quit, the extremists would no longer have a base to stand on.

[Replicon]

However, BY BEING A “MODERATE” YOU GIVE YOUR SUPPORT TO A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS THE EXTREMISTS TO DO THEIR THING. If all “moderates” just quit, the extremists would no longer have a base to stand on. I agree with your general sentiment, but that last part doesn't sound right to me. Moderates are a demonstration of how religion can and is used to better some people's lives. Why would you want them not to have that? Besides, most extremists don't quite like the "moderates".

[Sortilegio]

A religious friend of mine told me that the greatest evils of the 20th century, Nazism and Communism, were expressions of godless societies. Without god, he said, this is what mankind gets up to: genocide, massacres, war, terrible destruction. Therefore he said, we need religion (and god), to keep us on the right track. A very good answer to this is found in Christopher Hitchen’s excellent book, “God is not great”. It goes something like this. The mechanisms at work behind Nazism and Communism are very similar to those you will find in any given religion: An individual is perceived as a “prophet” (Hitler was “Der Führer”: the Guide), Stalin was “the Father of the People”. He stands at the head of a single political party which claims to have the monopoly of truth, and excludes any other parties (this is exactly what sects, cults, churches, and major religious institutions do). The individual is of course expected to accept and believe everything he is told by the state, obey, and give up his own critical judgment (Islam, by the way, means "subimssion", not peace, as someone posted recently). Look at how North Koreans worship their current “Dear Leader” (son of their previous “Great Leader”): it’s absolutely religious. (The need to be praised is very human, is it not? Why would an all-powerful creator of the universe have such a need? How would you feel if you were worshipped by millions of ants??). In all these systems, heresy is severely punished. You get sent to die in the prisons of the Gulag for criticizing the Communist party, or end up in a concentration camp if the Nazis don’t like you. Just as the Inquisition will hunt you down and torture you to death (thank you, Christians) or a fatwa will be issued calling for your execution (thank you, Islam). In all systems, promises are given of a glorious future: heaven, a global socialist revolution, a 1000 year Reich… Conclusion: these man-made systems (religion is also man-made) all work in the same way. And if you get large numbers of people to follow a system that claims to have exclusive access to truth, which is exactly what religious and totalitarian systems do, you are heading for big trouble. So… THINK FOR YOURSELF, DON’T LET ANYBODY OR ANY BOOK TELL YOU HOW TO LEAD YOUR LIFE. A note to “moderates”: it is argued that the vast majority of “moderate” Christians, or “moderate” Muslims would never hurt anybody. This is probably true. There were probably lots of “moderate” Nazis, and “moderate” communists who were also not ready to go out and kill people just for the heck of it. However, BY BEING A “MODERATE” YOU GIVE YOUR SUPPORT TO A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS THE EXTREMISTS TO DO THEIR THING. If all “moderates” just quit, the extremists would no longer have a base to stand on. This statement itself is extremist and totalitarian.

[.:Rob:.]

Wait, I'm sure I read somewhere something about neo nazism a while back, and I'm sure it said something about the neo nazis only supporting people who follow wasp religeons (white anglo saxon protestant religeons). Isn't that true?

[three and four]

Hi Replicon, Thanks for your comments about moderates. I’ll try to illustrate what I mean by using a passage from the Koran, from Sura 4.34: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women. (…). Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last, beat them." Basically it says that if you suspect your wife of behaving badly, you can beat her. Now I’m sure that the majority of Muslims would not beat their wives (at least I hope so). However, bear in mind that this passage is from a book which is supposed to be the actual word of god. Moderates and extremists all agree about the book’s divine origin. So, all it takes is a small minority who DO act on this "word of god" to create a very serious wife-beating problem. 1% of 1.2 billion Muslims is over ten million people who might beat their wives because god tells them it’s ok. However, if the 99% of moderates stood up and said “hey, wait a minute, there is no god who writes books, and why does god have to tell me how to treat my wife anyway, let’s get rid of this Koran thing and think for ourselves”, then the ground disappears from under the extremists’ feet. See what I mean? The same reasoning applies to other issues: all it takes is 1% of Jews and 1% of Muslims to firmly believe that god has given them the same piece of land in Palestine for the whole region to be at war for generations. I agree with you that some people have used religion to better their lives. The problem is that in doing so they give support to systems that carry a lot of violent baggage with them that others will act on. And even if those who act out the violence are a small minority, the problems cause can be huge: all it took was 19 young men on September 11… Besides, since when is religion the only way for people to find hope, comfort and peace? PS Sorry .:Rob:. I don’t know a thing about what religions neo Nazis like or don’t like…

[Jeremysr]

Besides, since when is religion the only way for people to find hope, comfort and peace? There would be no point to life. You'd end up dead. For eternity. If I thought I would be dead for eternity, I'd spend my whole life trying to prolong it.

[Replicon]

Hey 3&&4, I can see your point, but I think you don't give enough options for said moderates. Let's say it's a fact that some holy book says "If your wife shows a sign of trying to think for herself, smack her around." You present moderates with two options: Let the holy book take over their lives, or quit the religion. And I think moderates actually exist between those two options. A moderate will take the holy book with a grain of salt, and infuse a dose of common sense. A moderate will say "only an asshole god would want THAT" and realize that words of men wrote the holy book. Every moderate is different, in that while they call themselves <insert religion here>, their beliefs are all slightly different, along with their morals. Extremists, on the other hand, are like-minded. I say that because the holy book is printed the same, and if you accept the entire thing without using your brain on the side, and if you're unwilling to question anything, then you will think like everyone else who does the same. But anyway, going back to moderates, if they are using their brains when going through the holy book, then they don't have to stand up and say "I reject ALL of this". They can build their own personal belief system using some of the guidelines. And isn't that what spirituality is? It's supposed to be a very personal thing. So I expect some form of individuality to come out of it. Besides, since when is religion the only way for people to find hope, comfort and peace? There would be no point to life. You'd end up dead. For eternity. If I thought I would be dead for eternity, I'd spend my whole life trying to prolong it. Exactly, and for some people, religion is the only way to come to terms with the fact that life is temporary. Personally, I use that knowledge to live my life to the fullest, instead of hoping there's something after.

[NatureBoy93]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sYpS2fkwW...elated&search= http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4xhdxEok...elated&search= godless eh? alot of people out there using religion as an excuse. pitty.

[three and four]

Hi Jeremysr, “There would be no point to life. You'd end up dead. For eternity. If I thought I would be dead for eternity, I'd spend my whole life trying to prolong it.” I suppose you mean there would be no point & hope without god or religion, right? Well, if I thought I’d be ALIVE for eternity, I might end up spending my time trying to end it!!! Seriously though. When I was a kid I was afraid of the dark. So sometimes my parents would leave a small light on at night and I’d feel reassured. As I grew up I lost this fear, and it’s now gone completely. So fears can be overcome. Fear of death is understandable. What comes after death? The truth is that nobody knows, and that can be scary. Nobody knows! But I can live with this - and honestly, it really doesn’t bother me. I just know that I’ll one day step into the great unknown. Beyond that? No idea! What matters is now, as Replicon said. And I agree that knowing that our time is limited makes it all the more precious… We didn’t exist before we were born, right? Was that so bad? No, it wasn’t! So why would no longer existing after we die be that bad either? So I suspect that the issue here is not the question of “is there life after death?”, but that this issue is more about letting go of fear of the unknown. Religion tells us unverifiable fairytales about “heaven” and eternal life. But I’m afraid that that’s all they are: fairytales. They might feel good, but there comes a time when growing up is necessary. This means accepting that there are a lot of thing we just don’t know. But believe me, it’s really not that bad: the more we admit that we don’t know, the more we then have to discover, and that’s really exciting!

[three and four]

Replicon, I agree with most of what you write. I’m not at all attacking the fact that people can intelligently piece together their own set of values from various sources, especially if they do so after having come to the conclusion that there is no god that writes books. However, if a “moderate” does indeed come to the conclusion that his “holy book” was in fact written by semi-literate men and contains a lot of unacceptable violence, then I’d like to hear him say so, loudly! This would not stop him from keeping certain pieces that he thinks make sense (which probably can be found in other books as well: religion does not have the monopoly of rules about good behavior…), and would not stop him from leading an ethical life. But if the “moderates” do NOT step back and criticize the book out loud, then, as I said above, you still have a high number of (less critically-minded) people who will accept the text about (for example) wife beating and act on it because it was “written by god”. If you are going to pick and choose from parts of the bible (or other “holy” book), because you have come to the conclusion that it was not written by god and that it contains bits that are violent and that you don’t like, then why limit your picking and choosing to that one single book? Accept that wisdom can be found in many places, and that no one book or religion has a monopoly on truth!

[Replicon]

Nobody said to limit it from a single book; I was just simplifying my contrived example. I think moderates do speak out against hatred and intolerance as loudly as they can. Unfortunately, they are difficult to hear, because they are busy fending off atheists who keep bothering them . But more seriously, I think the reason they can't be heard, aside from the obvious fact that the current government will do anything in its power to silence them, is that they can't really stand united, by definition. Many of them feel passionately about some of the things that differ in the beliefs amongst them, and they havent yet learned to form a solid argument based on the big picture. That is one of the main reasons the conservatives have been winning elections lately. I still don't think the moderates really have an effect on the extremists. The extremists think the moderates are not true to whatever religion they are extreming in. To them, all those moderates are going to burn in hell (and the more of an extremist you are, the more literally you take the term "burn in hell" hehe).

[Jeremysr]

We didn’t exist before we were born, right? Was that so bad? No, it wasn’t! So why would no longer existing after we die be that bad either? Here is my timeline: |----- death ---------- life ----------- eternity/timelessness -----| In the first part I am dead for a very long time. It's like being asleep. But because I was dead, I don't remember a thing so to me it feels like I was only dead for an instant. After life I believe it will be the exact same way (unless there's an afterlife.) Except instead of being dead for "a very long time", you'll be dead for eternity. It would be infinitely worse than my death before life, because it would last an eternity. I know my death before life didn't last an eternity because if it did I would still be dead and never would have been born.

[Replicon]

Every human's experience has been "while being alive", and that makes it IMMENSELY difficult for a human to imagine the concept of "not existing". But before the sperm met the egg, you were not "dead", but rather inexistant. Here's an interesting question: Before the sperm meets the egg... where is the soul? Cause it sounds like with all the possibilities, there are way more souls that are never granted life (and remain dead?) than there are that get that privilege... unless the sperm meets the egg, and gets the soul from like... a global "soul pool" where souls are lining up... or something...

[three and four]

Jeremysr, thank you for your explanations about the death / life / eternal life thing. I appreciate that you have shared this, as I’m sure that this is something which for you is very special and personal. However, and with all due respect, it must be pointed out that there is not the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence available to support your understanding of this life / death / eternity continuum. This way of thinking / believing opens up the door to absolutely any kind of wild belief that might pop into your mind. When whole societies think wild things, they end up doing wild things, and then collapsing. Can we not have the humility to admit that our own limited human brains simply do not have the capacity to grasp concepts such as eternity, as well as non-existence? If we admit this we admit that there is a whole lot we don’t know, and then can step by step, based on reason and evidence, do our best to figure out a little more as we grow and evolve. But if our starting point is some sort of wild unverifiable assumption, such as “the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster” then we will for sure be going in the wrong direction. Do you see what I mean? You write: "in the beginning I am dead for a very long time". Ah, I ask, how long? And what came before that? And then what came even before that? Was there a starting point to you being dead? If so how did you become dead in the first place and what were you before? Does your being dead before being born stretch back eternally, goind backwards? I'm just trying to say that these things do not make sense... Sorry! Conclusion: we just don't know! Is that so bad?? :-)

[skysaw]

3/4, I very much appreciate your level-headed discourse here. I'm with you all the way on the points you make. It's great to see someone who can explain some of these things which this kind of patience and clarity.

[three and four]

Thanks Skysaw, I appreciate that! Some of the best reading I've done on the subject has been Sam Harris' "The End of Faith", and "Letter to a Christian Nation", as well as the recently-published "God is not Great", by Christopher Hitchens (as I mentioned above). If you're interested, you might want to check them out!

[Universal Mind]

Those are great points, three and four. I have heard a lot of people say that Hitler and Stalin committed their evil because they were atheists. It is such an unfounded assumption. Hitler and Stalin never said they were killing in the name of the nonexistence of God. But the Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisitors, the Islamofascists, the IRA, a long list of cults, and lots and lots of other terrible people did their killing in the very name of their religions. I can't think of anybody off the top of my head who has ever killed in the name of atheism. Most atheists value life a great deal because we think this is the only one we will ever have. Religious extremists, on the other hand, think this life is an insignificant prelude to the "real" life. That makes them dangerous.

[syzygy]

three and four, Do I have it right that you believe that because a small minority in a religion can interpret a text for their own, selfish wants that those who interpret it for self-betterment and the benefit of others should completely dismiss the text and that this would stop the former from doing harmful acts? Don't you think they just find some other authoritative power to get what they want? Are you seriously saying that anything that can be used for harmful purposes, despite its positive qualities, should be banned? Do you see how ridiculous this is? There is a lot of misguided thinking here. First, to think that you can take a quote out of context with little to no understanding of the religion or how to go about interpreting such a text and try to prove a point with it is ignorant. Sutra 4.34 does not mean what you say it means. Muhammad himself said: "Do not beat women. Those who hit women are amongst the worst of creatures." It would be way too much to go into how one should interpret religious texts here, but at the very least stop taking texts at face value and trying to prove a point with it. There is a HUGE!!! difference between a prophet in a religion and someone like Hitler! It is so huge in fact that they are complete opposites! A prophet is one who, based on personal understanding and selflessness, professes their knowledge for the benefit of all (by getting rid of selfish thoughts, one allows the Will of God to flow through them - this is what "the Word of God" means). Someone like Hitler uses their power to get others to do what they will - this is a parody of the Will of God. Just because a religious text can be skewed for selfish gain does not mean that it should be thrown out. Quite the opposite! We should be trying to find the true meaning of the text and allow it to transform our lives for the better. There will always be those who will use something for harmful acts. In fact, something like Al Qaeda could not exist without modern technology, but I don't see you wanting to get rid of the internet because of it.

[Original Poster]

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind or soul that life continues after death. However, not necessarily my life. I have come to accept this even though the fear caused me to be devout when I was younger. The life I speak of is the world, and yet it seems the people who believe beyond any shadow of a doubt that their lives continue after death seem to be the most common ones to destroy it. This is selfish, and it's not likely they'd reach paradise even if it existed. The fact is life goes on after we die, we are but puzzle peaces in a system, fractions of a larger social consciousness, cells meant to do our part before we pass on to make room for more. Revelations says when all the terrible shit starts happening the true believers should start rejoicing, this is purely destructive. It's terrible to me. And for those who still really need an afterlife, just do enough spiritual research and you'll find their is ample proof of life beyond death, though it's not quite anything like the heaven described in most popular religions today.

[three and four]

Hello Syzygy, and thanks for your thoughts. Once again, here is a quote from the Koran, Sura 4.34: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women. (…). Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last, beat them. It’s interesting, Syzygy, to see how you deal with this quote. You say I take it out of context, misinterpret it, and that in any case Mohammed said that wife beating is bad. For a start, what Mohammed said or didn’t say is difficult to be sure of: he lived 1400 years ago: before recording technology was available. So you can only say “Mohammed is reported to have said”. As you know, the reported word of Mohammed does not have as much weight as the text of the Koran itself. As you also know, the Koran is supposed to be the word of god himself, dictated to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. So what the Koran says trumps whatever else is “reported” to have been said before, during or after, and by anybody, even Mohammed himself. So what matters is the Koran, which is what 1.2 billion Muslims refer to as the perfect word of god. Syzygy, you’re a bright guy, and I’m sure you would not beat a woman (or anybody else, right?). So let’s say that you have interpreted this quote in a way that fits your understanding of how women should be treated. Fine, congratulations! Now, can you honestly tell me that you can’t see how someone less educated than yourself might interpret this quote as a green light to smack his wife about from time to time? And can you tell me that even a small percentage of 1.2 billion people reading this quote as the word of god won’t contribute to domestic violence because of it? You see, Syzygy, what I am saying is that BECAUSE you are a bright guy, you don’t need a text written in the desert in the 7th century to know how to treat your girlfriend. I would go even further and say that because you are a bright guy you can figure out a whole lot of things for yourself without the help (or hindrance) of an old book full of prejudice and violence. I know you can do it! Besides the issues of violence in this quote, look at other aspects of it: women have to be “devoutly obedient”, and it’s clear from the Koran that men are in charge. Now, look at how women are treated in Saudi Arabia (where Mohammed came from), for example: they are covered from head to foot, can’t vote, can’t drive, can’t travel without the permission of their male relatives, are often married against their choice, and suffer the death penalty if they cheat on their husbands or have sex before marriage… (Would you like to live like this?). How many women living in free western countries are queuing up to emigrate to Saudi Arabia? Not a lot. And can you tell me, Syzgy, that you see no link between this oppression of women and how the Koran talks about them? (There are LOTS of Koran quotes I could insert here on that subject which shows how women are considered as second-class citizens in Islam). Are you going to tell me I’m pulling things out of context and misinterpreting the word “obedient”? Come on: please admit there is a problem here! And enough Koran quotes. I think I’ll quote you now. You write: “Are you seriously saying that anything that can be used for harmful purposes, despite its positive qualities, should be banned? Do you see how ridiculous this is?” I’m not saying that texts should be banned. I like free speech too much for that. I’m saying that if a book contains a great many contradictions, violence and bigotry, then people should stop claiming that it was written by an imaginary creator of the universe, and should step back from it. Because even if the book does contain some good bits, there are a lot of people who are going to go and act out the violence and bigotry: and it’s happening every day all around us. Remember 9/11? Furthermore, for someone as bright as yourself, Syzygy, I’m saying that you are able to figure out a way of living in peace and harmony without texts written by unwashed desert-dwellers who thought the world was flat and for whom the wheelbarrow would have been a major technological breakthrough. I know you can do it!! Right? You also write: “There is a HUGE!!! difference between a prophet in a religion and someone like Hitler!” In answer to this I will say please google David Koresh and Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh as fine examples of what happens when people put aside their critical sense and follow “prophets” who claim divine inspiration. In my original post above, I did not say that all “prophets” are Hitlers. I was pointing out the mechanical similarities between what happens when religious masses abandon individual critical judgment and blindly follow a leader and what happens when brainwashed populations do the same (please google North Korea…). Bottom line is this: we can now be mature enough to figure out for ourselves (and together as societies) how to lead our lives and build a better future for generations to come. Irrational texts full violence and bigotry are holding us back. The god of Abraham belongs on the history shelf next to Zeus, Ra, Thor, Gilgamesh, and a very long list of imaginary beings that humans have dreamed up during humanity’s childhood!

[three and four]

Hi Universal Mind, I agree completely with what you say. Thanks. However, you write: “Religious extremists (…) think this life is an insignificant prelude to the "real" life. That makes them dangerous.” To this I would say that not only do religious extremists believe this, but ALL believers!! Look at what Jeremysr wrote just above: that this life will be followed by “eternal” whateveritwas. In an age of atomic weapons of horrendous destructive power that could wipe out billions of people in minutes, this belief is horrendously dangerous. It’s a real nightmare! Sure, a 1% of extremists believe it, but so do the other 99% of believers – the so-called “moderates”! This is very much what I’m getting at when I write about the problem with “moderates”. In an age of bows and arrows, there was only so much harm that silly ideas could do. This is no longer the case today.

[syzygy]

three and four, thanks for your response. Once again, here is a quote from the Koran, Sura 4.34: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women. (…). Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last, beat them. It’s interesting, Syzygy, to see how you deal with this quote. You say I take it out of context, misinterpret it, and that in any case Mohammed said that wife beating is bad. As you know, the Koran was written in Arabic. It is interesting to note that in Arabic they do not have separate words for "translate" and "interpret", but they are included in a single word so that any translation is also an interpretation. This is an interesting concept that we do not usually think about in Western languages, and this concept couldn't be more pertinent than in this situation. To truly understand this sura, you must take it in context of the whole Koran, the time in which it was written, and the tradition of hadith. (It is true that hadith were not written down over a hundred years after Muhammad's death, but there are many recorded instances were the prophet condemned treating women poorly and we should use these when going through the difficult task of interpreting the Koran.) One example, in the translation you used: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women." For "protectors and maintainers", the Arabic word is qawwamuna, from the root qawwam. In English, this can be translated as any of the following: keeper, custodian, guardian, to be in charge of, manage, run, tend, guard, keep up, preserve, take care of, attend to, watch over, look after, direct, superintend, maintainer, caretaker, provider, and supporter. Since it was easier in those times for men to make an income, it was their duty to make sure their wives also had financial support. This has nothing to do with exploiting women, but everything to do with being responsible and taking care of them. You say that "devoutly obedient" clearly means that men are in charge, but you have no idea what this is in reference to. It is not talking about obedience to men, but to Allah. Another example of translation/interpretation is the word "beat". This comes from the Arabic root daraba, which can be translated in over a hundred different ways. This includes: to separate, to part, to set out (on the road), to shroud (in darkness), to mint (a coin), to publish (a book), to cover, to dispatch, to throw, to raise. Words with the same root occur about 60 times in the Koran with different contexts that are open to widely different translations in English. No other time is it translated as "to hit/strike/beat". It seems much more plausible that it means "to separate" or "to part", and especially so if you take into account the hadith. It doesn't make any sense that if your wife has lost faith in Allah that you should beat her! There are examples throughout the Koran of how men and women should help each other and never harm another being unless in self-defense, so why would this one word, which has over a hundred different meanings, be any different? So let’s say that you have interpreted this quote in a way that fits your understanding of how women should be treated. Fine, congratulations! Now, can you honestly tell me that you can’t see how someone less educated than yourself might interpret this quote as a green light to smack his wife about from time to time? And can you tell me that even a small percentage of 1.2 billion people reading this quote as the word of god won’t contribute to domestic violence because of it? Yes, it is very easy to see how people can interpret this sura to legitimize their animal urges, but this does not mean that the text is the problem. The Koran does not say "beat your wife" as I showed; some people project that meaning onto it because they want to do it. You cannot seriously blame a text because someone can misuse it for its opposite meaning. I’m not saying that texts should be banned. I like free speech too much for that. I’m saying that if a book contains a great many contradictions, violence and bigotry, then people should stop claiming that it was written by an imaginary creator of the universe, and should step back from it. Because even if the book does contain some good bits, there are a lot of people who are going to go and act out the violence and bigotry: and it’s happening every day all around us. Remember 9/11? It does not have contradictions, violence or bigotry if you actually take the time to understand it instead of copy and pasting it off the internet to support your own thoughts. If you take its spiritual meaning (it is a spiritual book after all), it makes perfect sense and teaches kindness and tolerance. All interpretations that result in violence are a satanic parody of its true spiritual meaning. 9/11 was much more political than religious and is more a reflection of the modern world than Islam. The true battle is within, and any external wars are a demented inversion of this. Bottom line is this: we can now be mature enough to figure out for ourselves (and together as societies) how to lead our lives and build a better future for generations to come. Irrational texts full violence and bigotry are holding us back. The god of Abraham belongs on the history shelf next to Zeus, Ra, Thor, Gilgamesh, and a very long list of imaginary beings that humans have dreamed up during humanity’s childhood! You have such faith in humanist progress, but it is an illusion. Cutting off a branch of a tree is not going to stop it from growing, you have to pull it out by its roots. Funny enough, this is exactly what religion's true purpose is: getting to the roots of your problems so that you may be free of them. True religion happens within on a personal level and no external parody can stop that.

[three and four]

Dear Syzygy, My copy of the Koran is an interpretation / translation from the original Arabic by the respected Pakistani scholar Allama Abdullah Yusuf Ali, dating from 1934 (well before current political concerns might have clouded some of the verses). So no, I did not lift my quote for the internet, as you supposed. I actually read all 586 pages of my copy very carefully when I was living in Pakistan, and I took many notes. You say that the word “beat” (in the context of “wife beating” of verse 4.34) does not actually mean “use physical violence”. I don’t know ancient Arabic so I did some extra checking (this time using google...). http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=114839 gives the translation as “beat” http://quran.islamicnetwork.com/viewverses.php?q=4 gives the translation as “beat them (lightly, if it is useful)” http://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/quran/qsearch.pl?surah=4 says “scourge them” (that means whip, according to my dictionary)… http://www.contrelislam.org/islam/coran/sourates/sourate4.htm (in French) says “frappez-les”, which means “hit them”. So, dear Syzygy, if you count my Yusuf Ali translation, that’s five sources who says that “beat” does indeed mean “beat” – just like I said. However, I don’t think that arguing over a single word will get us very far: I’d much rather look at the bigger picture, don’t you agree? But I do suspect you of being deliberately deceptive. You failed to answer my remarks about the fact that women in Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam, and country that claims the Koran as its Constitution, live under terrible oppression. If the Koran were really so progressive on the issue of women’s right, would this be so? Judge a tree by its fruits, as we are wisely told in Matthew VII… When a quote doesn’t quite suit them, I’m always amazed by the way religious folk come up with the most extraordinary acrobatics to demonstrate that a text can mean everything and its opposite, but never quite what it obviously states. What you have done is a fine example of the lengths religious people will go to in order to avoid the blatantly obvious: there is indeed a LOT wrong with their “holy” texts. But you refuse to admit this, and are even prepared to be dishonest about it. I say to you again, dear Syzygy, why do you need to refer to a text that was written by camel herders 1400 years ago to know how to treat women? You are a bright guy: in order to find out how women want to be treated you might… ask them!! Shock! And what might they say? Well, I’ve never conducted a census, but my guess would be something along the lines of: “well, you know, with respect and the same rights as men, etc etc”. Wow! Was that so hard? It sure spares the need for arcane knowledge of ancient Arabic… You write: that the Koran “does not have contradictions, violence or bigotry”. Well, my answer to this would get me executed in most Muslim countries. Here it is: No violence in the Koran? No bigotry? You’re joking, right??!! That is not true, Syzygy, and I suspect that you know it. Islam is a religion of conquest. Mohammed was a very smart and very successful conqueror, not some sort of Gandhi / spinning wheel / dreamer type. Your claim that Islam is a religion of peace is misguided (and possibly downright deceptive). Islam is probably the most intolerant and aggressive of all religions. The quotes that follow are all examples of the very high levels of aggressivity and intolerance found throughout the Koran. Oh, maybe most Muslims are “moderates” and won’t act out the orders they contain, but as I’ve said before, these moderates all accept that the quotes that follow come from a book that is supposed to have been written by god, thus giving the quotes legitimacy. So it can be no surprise that a minority actually do act out what these quotes order “the believers” to do. Here we go. (Note: “the Believers” are the Muslims. The unbelievers / infidels are everybody else, ie most people on this website). You might want to read this with a thought for the victims of 9/11... 48.13 And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire! 58.5 Those who oppose (the commands of) Allah and His Messenger will be humbled to dust (…): the infidels will have a humiliating chastisement. 67.20 In nothing but delusion are the unbelievers. 22.19&20 Those who deny (Allah) – for them will be cut out a garment of fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be melted what is within their bodies, as well as their skins. 24.57 Never think that the infidels can escape: in the earth their abode is the fire – and it is indeed an evil refuge. 76.4 For those who reject (Allah), We have prepared Chains, Yokes, and a Blazing Fire. 8.50 If thou couldst see, when the angels take the souls of the unbelievers at death, how they smite their faces and their backs, saying: "Taste the chastisement of the blazing Fire". 8.55 For the worst beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject him: they will not believe. 9.63 Know they not that for those who oppose Allah and his Messenger, is the Fire of Hell? Wherein they shall dwell. That is the supreme disgrace. 8.30 Remember how the unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out of thy home. They plot and plan, and Allah too plans, but the best of planners is Allah. 8.36 The unbelievers spend their wealth to hinder men from the path of Allah (…) but at length they will be overcome: and the unbelievers will be gathered together to Hell. 64.16 So fear Allah as much as ye can: hear and obey. 5.51 O ye who believe! Take not Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. 5.55 Your real friends are no less than Allah, His Messenger, and the Believers. 9.30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the Son of Allah. (…). Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. 4.46 Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their right places (…) with a twist of the tongue and a slander of Faith. (…). But Allah hath cursed them for their unbelief, and but few of them will believe. 9.113 It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for Pagans (…), after it is clear to them that they are companions of the Fire 9.33 It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to cause it to prevail over all religion. 9.29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (…). 4.76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith fight in the cause of Evil. (…). 61.4 Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause. 4.95 (…) And those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their person, Allah hath granted a grade higher grade than to those who sit at home. (…). Those who strive and fight hath He distinguished above those who sit at home by a great reward. 4.74 Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah – whether he is slain of gets victory – soon shall We give him a reward of great value. 3.169&170 Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance from their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah. (…). The martyrs glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they cause to grieve. 4.76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith fight in the cause of Evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan (…). 4.84 Then fight in Allah's cause – thou art held responsible only for thyself – and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the unbelievers, for Allah is the strongest in might and punishment. 8.65 O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty among you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred. If a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers: for these are people without understanding. 9.123 O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. 4.101 When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for hear the unbelievers may attack you: for the unbelievers are unto you open enemies. 3.151 Soon We shall cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers (…): their abode will be the Fire: and evil is the home of the wrong-doers. 8.12 Remember thy Lord inspired the Angels with the message: "(…) I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them". 8.59&60 Let not the unbelievers think they have escaped (…). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of your enemies. 17.16 When We decide to destroy a town, We command those among them who are given the good things of this life to be obedient, but they continued to transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then We destroyed them utterly. 5.33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of the hands and feet, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. (5.38 As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a retribution for their deed and exemplary punishment from Allah.) 8.67 It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until He hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world, but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: and Allah is Exalted in might, Wise. 70.28 to 31 For their Lord's punishment is not a thing to feel secure from: And those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the captives which their right hand possesses – for then they are not to be blamed. But those who trespass beyond this are transgressors. 3.169&170 Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance from their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah. (…). The martyrs glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they cause to grieve. 4.74 Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah – whether he is slain of gets victory – soon shall We give him a reward of great value. 1.221 Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe: a slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allure you. Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe: a man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever. Unbelievers do but beckon you to the Fire. Oh, and here’s the “no bigotry” quote, about gays: 7.81 For ye who practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. Humm, doesn’t god mind lesbians? Now please be honest: you know that even if the universe did have a magical creator who pulls all the strings and keeps the planets spinning, he would not write stuff like this. Really, he wouldn’t – trust me. So stay honest and admit that all this garbage must have been written by man. This is the first step towards moving away from the prison of these old superstitions and looking healthily towards the future. Sure, I believe in humanism. You know why? Because humans exist, god doesn’t!! Religion is not the only path to “spirituality”. In fact, the two rarely go together. Again, you’re a bright guy, you figure it out.

[skysaw]

@ Three and Four:

[syzygy]

I am sorry to have assumed you took the quote from the internet, as that is usually what happens around here. You are obviously well versed in the Koran. Still, unless I could read the text in the original language and put several years into studying it on a personal level (something I have not done), I would not take the English translation (and there are reasons why it is translated the same way, which are very questionable) as its meaning. There is something I should clear up: I am not Muslim, nor have I studied the Koran in depth. I do not follow any one religion, but if I was to be considered anything, the closest would be a Traditionalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_School). This being so, I completely understand where you are coming from in terms of how the Koran (or any religious text) is misused to cause harm, but I cannot agree with you that it should be completely dismissed or that it would solve anything. I do not follow any one religion because I believe the external aspects of each religion only hinder one's understanding of its true essence, which is shared by all religions. That being said, I will address the real issue here. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the problems that arise from extremists stem from the religion. I think these problems come from a much deeper source and religion is used as an excuse for it. Therefore, to get rid of the religion is not going to solve the problem, nor would that even be a plausible option. Unfortunately this is a problem that does not have an easy solution, but I don't think blaming religion is going to get you anywhere. It is true that a lot of people throughout history have used religion as an excuse to harm others, but that is not its essence - it is an inversion of its essence. Some people will use anything that can give them power to get what they want (even if they are unaware of this) and manipulate others into giving their lives for their selfish cause. All I ask is that you do not blame the surface of the problem and look deeper into the roots of why people manipulate others or follow those who manipulate. Actually, it was studying religion on a personal level that brought me an true understanding of these problems and how to rid myself of them. Religion can only work on a personal level, and anytime it is projected into the external it will inevitably devolve into an empty shell that can be used for selfish deeds.