Religious Moderates Need to Speak Up

militant atheism ??? what the f....??!! where do you even come up with this garbage?? anti-theists (your label 'atheists') are some of the most peace loving people I know. we have to be!! we don't beleive in any (ridiculous) concept of an afterlife, remember?!?!? therefore, we want to live on this planet for as long as possible!

I guess that just because I consider all religious persons to be MORONS, that makes me MILITANT?!?!?

CHRISTIAN IDIOT!!!!

Dave,

Good work !

Please join us here (if you are'nt already a member):
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/

I'm sure you'll have a lot to contribute towards the exposition and demise of this cult.

So i'm being censored and watched am I?

Can't annoy the peaceful, misunderstood, victimised Muslims can we...they may blow you up, right?

PADDY it is not only possible, but actually desirable to be practicing Islam as a moderate- it is the middle way. When extremists (not muslims- its decriers) define islam through a lack of knowledge and misrepresent it- that doesnt mean you have to believe that they know how to be a muslim or are in a position to instruct others as such.

Just as i dont presume to tell atheists how to think or act or what to (not) believe- i find it incongrous that non-muslims feel free to infer that they know my religion and its pure practice better than i do- and if i dont jump to ridiculous extremes and fit into their preconceived ideas and biases of what they imagine it to be-
then somehow i cant be truly authentically representing my faith.

i would contend that i am probably in a better position to judge my own practices.
peace

Oh and by the way...Before you yet again play the poor Muslim victim Victoria you may like to know this:

http://www.religiouswatch.com/nw0107.htm#Fed_to_the_Lions

""Around 250 million Christians worldwide will face persecution in 2007, according to persecution watchdog Release International (RI).
In particular the U.K.-based group found that persecution is growing the fastest in the Muslim world.

Governments in even moderate Muslim countries often fail to safeguard the rights of their Christian minorities, explained RI.
Abuses suffered by Christians include kidnapping, forced conversion, imprisonment, church destruction, torture, rape and execution."

To be fair you can also add (to a lesser degree of course) Communism, Hinduism and Buddhism.

But quite frankly it's not Christians doing the persecution. As I don't remember reports of Muslims being kidnapped, tortured, raped and executed in the UK and America.
Do you, poor victimised Victoria?

Oh and you might like to know that devout followers of Islam just blew up a girl's school in Pakistan because the girls were not veiled.
Makes a change from burning churches I suppose, which is what the Islamists normally like to do in Pakistan, 6 last year in fact.

I must have missed the reports from the Uk and America where poor persecuted Muslims in those countries found their Islamic schools and mosques being destroyed.
Or was it just that such things don't actually happen in our countries...despite the so called victim-status of you poor, poor Muslims.

Victoria:

Again. I asked simple questions. You refused (as Muslims ALWAYS DO) to answer them and debate them.
You utterly refuse to allow the questioning of your religion...You'll push that religion on everyone, you'll accuse those who don't agree on your religion of being prejudiced, but you won't ever actually answer the hard questions about your religion and what it does! Typical.

You, as Muslims ALWAYS DO (even as it's victims wipe away the dust and blood from yet another holy Islamic outrage), simply played the poor picked on minority victim who was being bullied because someone dared to challenge your religion.
A religion that is currently sweeping over the globe in a wake of death, rape, torture and countless threats of more such things to come.

Well hard luck. As yet we don't live under Islamic rule (where all questioning and criticism of Islam is ruthlessly stamped down) so I have every right to challenge and question your religion.
Call it the small price you pay for living with all the benefits a non-Islamic society offers you, that regimes based around the rule of Law of your precious Islam do not. ESPECIALLY AS A WOMAN!

Well I care not one bit for your white-washing, dodging the issues, cries of victimhood while your religion threatens the Western freedoms I love (often the very countries that gave Muslims shelter from wars and famine and, UNLIKE CHRISTIANITY IN ISLAMIC REGIMES, allowed Islam to prosper) and spreads the worry that the next time someone travels on a train, bus or train it will be thier last...because Allah loves a martyr!

You're either a liar about being a so called moderate, or you actually can't give opinions on these countless injustices under Islamic rule, in the name of Islam (often on a legal/state level that is utterly unique to Islam) because
A) You don't think they even are injustices.
B) You can't condemn them and at the same time hold up this image you have of a fluffy, peaceful, tolerant Islam.

Either way you're quite frankly nothing more than that public, dangerous smiling face (be it as a trick or a bit of self-delusion) of a fanatic religion that has changed the face of the World as we know it.

And I for one am a Seculist. Not an Atheist.
I have no idea if any, of the many supposed one true Gods, is real or not (you have to laugh at that don't you!).
But quite frankly brutal, prejudiced man-made religions (faith has nothing to do with a religion) based on not a single facet of actual proof have NO PLACE OUTSIDE OF A CHURCH OR YOUR LIVING ROOM!

And that religion is used as a shield to protect bigots and murderous zealots while they carry out physical and verbal injustices against those they consider unsuitable is another unwanted slice of public/political religious shame.

It says it all really when the one and only thing all these fanatical religions and their followers can agree on is how worthy Homosexuals are of condemnation and abuse (and even death as far as Islamic rule goes).
Nice to see you can agree on something though. Shame it's yet another example barabaric abuse though, that is skilfully protected by the bigots as being 'the word of God' (whichever one true God that happnes to be!).

The fact is religions are turning back the centuries as we speak.
The rise of hardline religions (all man-made edifices and utterly corrupt to the core) is plunging the world into a new dark age!
And leading this charge into cultural, social, tolerant, rational oblivion is Islam, and all it's followers...be they snarling zealots hacking off heads, blowing up mosques or butchering teachers, or sweet little smiling faces that hide the dark truth of their religion, either knowingly or thanks to self-delusion.

You want to be a Catholic or a Muslim etc etc?
Fine you do that.
But you keep your belief to your specific places of worship and your homes...and you keep it the hell out of the wider society, politics and you stop ramming it into the the lives of those you and your Gods don't 'approve of' (like the ONE thing it seems all these nutty religions can agree on, Homosexuals for example).

Religion is man-made and as corrupt and open to abuse as anything else that comes from a Human being. It has no place as a rule of Law or in the social and political running of rational, civilised countries in the 21st century.

Mr Brock- your questions are impicitly accusatory and agressive in that respect. that is how a question can be agressive - your personal presumptions and insults are not deserving of repectful response.

I posted here to offer my respect to the Baroness.
I choose to reject your mean intentions.

i will not jump to angry or hateful bait-

i am not interested in the judgements of the prejudiced

I agree with the comments about moderates not actually being true to their religion. That is to me fair comment. But one thing is clear from this discussion and that is that the atheist comments are about as immoderate and irrational and aggressive and uneducated as you can get.

Atheism because we're better educated? Atheists 'more rational'?

Gawd 'elp us!

Paddy

"Honestly, what can religious moderates speaking up accomplish?"

To play mythical-personification-of-evil's advocate, maybe those moderates could serve as moles in their religions, helping to marginalize the extremists.

If I were writing a fantasy novel, I would have the moderates in Christianity hold a new Council of Nicea and chop everything from the Bible but the Sermon on the Mount.

"And, as Dawkins and Harris point out, religious moderates are the most dangerous of all! By giving a "nice face" to their religion, and not denying its basic tenents, they provide justification and moral cover for their extremist brethren".

VERY true. The smiling face of a religion (be it a trick or delusion on the part of who's smiling) is an effective shield.
As of course is race (and as such 'racism')...Even when, in Islams case, the religion shares no single ethnic link in its followers at all.

Honestly, what can religious moderates speaking up accomplish?

To most of their peers in their chosen faith, these moderates are just failed Christians/Muslims/Jews; and to atheists they are still clinging to the "good parts" of the fairy tale, while rejecting the parts that just make them feel too uncomfortable.

And, as Dawkins and Harris point out, religious moderates are the most dangerous of all! By giving a "nice face" to their religion, and not denying its basic tenents, they provide justification and moral cover for their extremist brethren.

"Mr Brock your questions are so aggressive that i do not feel in any way obligated to justify myself to you"

How can a question be aggressive? A question is simply a statement of fact waiting for a view.

The fact is you simply refuse to debate the TRUTH about what your religion does and stands for when the facts of those things annoys you.

You refused to answer simply put, directly put (one aimed specifically at you as a woman) questions because you quite simply can't answer them and at the same time still keep up this (now very, very obvious, given your later postings) facade of being a sweet, loving, peaceful, forgiving, accepting (and free to choose it seems!) Muslim woman.

You are in fact just another pretend Islamist moderate who refuses to allow others to ask direct and valid questions about your extremist fantasy religion.
A religion in fact full of Female delusionists and victims just like you.

Victoria:

Oh right! So all the beastly things in the Quran are suddenly mis-translations and misinterpretations!
That's handy!
But does that not mean that ALL of the Quran is!? Or just, by chance, the shameful parts?
Again...Very handy.

So your apologist view of your hardline religion is that the entire thing is one large misinterpretation and its really a cuddly belief after all.

Like I said...you either believe your religion is ALL the word of your God or not.
And if it's 'not', then your religion has no valid reason for being followed by anyone!

And the fact is the Quran DOES say that non-Muslims must allow themselves to be ruled by Islam..or be put to the sword.
And there are MANY, MANY translations that say that.

AND I might point out that there are MANY Muslims who DON'T think such passges (of which there are many, like the permission to beat your wife which was quoted recently by an Islamist in Australia arrested for such an act) are misinterpretations or bad translations!
So where does that leave you?

Where in fact does that leave your religion full stop!
Like I said...you can't even agree amongst yourselves what being a Muslim is, or what Islam is. But you sure like to ensure it gains as much influence and power as possible despite that.

Sura (3:56) - As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.

Sura (4:89) - They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah.
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.

Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned.

Sura (8:39) - And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be ONLY for Allah.

Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.

Sura (4:34) - Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other.
So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded.
As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.

And the BIG diffrence with Muslims is that they, above all over religious followers, still use, embrace and belive in the kind of violent verses other religions have long since turned their back on.
In fact NO other followers use SO MUCH of the war-like verses in the Quran to justify acts of utmost barbarity. Expecially the fact that Islam praises and rewards martyrs who die fighting those who do not accept Allah.

And no amount of apologist white-washing changes that.

And as for this:
"i wish atheists and christians didnt hate us so much and spread so much misinformation".

Perhaps you bring it on yourselves when you hack off the heads of unarmed prisoners and film it while calling out Allah's name, or strap bombs onto yourselves and blow up your own countrymen as in London, or when you hijack passenger filled planes and fly them into the Twin Towers, or when you hack up film directors in their own streets, or burn embassies, put out death threats and murder 50 people worldwide over some cartoons, or when you execute homosexuals, or stone women to death, or have Muslim fathers murder their daughters for supposed 'sins', or when you crusade with rape and butchery through Africa, or when you threaten to kill The Pope, or when you shooy 70 year old Nuns in the back, or when you cause the biggest terrorist threat the Western world has ever seen and call for the desctruction of those countries and their people that opened their arms and let you and your religion in, in all good faith, in the first place.

AHH TONIO- YOU ARE RIGHT TONIO IS A VERY BRIGHT FELLOW

Mr Brock your questions are so aggressive that i do not feel in any way obligated to justify myself to you.

If you care to tone down your vehemence and talk to me with respect, i will engage you.

but i do not respond to your method of pretending to ask questions while presuming to tell me what i believe.

i find it disingeuous and i mistrust your motives.
i feel attacked and do not have to explain myself

J- well- i am a blue eyed white lady and dont actually have any identity politics to hide in-
i have actually said the same thing many times but didnt have the science to backme up- just observations.
i find that in my life i act as a bridge between american christians and all sorts of muslims all the time- ive actually been a liaison in different situations.
it is certainly my intention to engage without rancor-
thank you for giving special terms to ideas- now theyll sound spiffier when i say "identity politics" of course i better read up on it before i use it so i dont misrepresent it-
peace

and again Mr Brock- if you call my religion rubbish- dont expect that i will take energy to respond to your harshness.

i am very responsive to respect.

That sentence should be, "claims to be the word of deity".

"You can't have a situation where followers accept SOME doctrines stated as coming from God's/his Prophet's mouths are true (those cozy ones that make us feel good and don't make us look bad) but don't accept other doctrines because they say nasty wicked things about people and what should be done to them!"

Dave, my point is that when any dogma claims to be the world of deity, we should automatically reject that claim and evaluate the dogma ourselves. No dogma has any right to demand that people believe certain things. No dogma has any right to claim that its words come from a divine source. Those demands and claims are the root cause of all the atrocities perpetuated by religions over the centuries. Remove any claims of divine endorsement, and let the teachings of the various religions stand or fall in the marketplace of ideas.

victoria:

And your views on Homosexuals and their legal, HOLY torture and execution under Islam?

Your views on simple cartoons?

Your views on the widespread, worldwide threats made against The Pope in the name of Islam?

Your views on the so called persecution of Muslims (while Muslims butcher as many Muslim men, women and children as possible) that is routinely used by 'moderate' Islamic apologists for acts of terrorist outrage?

Your views on the fact that whenever Islam gets into power, or becomes stronger, even basic human rights go out of the window? Just try to be a woman in Iran at the moment!

Your view that it is okay to arrest and trial converts?

Your view (as a woman) on the fact women are routinely, openly, often legally murdered, abused, raped, forced into marriages, refused permission to drive a car, stoned for so called adultery(often accused by scheming males, not allowed to be alone with a man in a room, forbidden an education?

Your views on the fact that it is not only NOT a minority of Muslims that hold what anyone else would call hardline views, but that barbaric abuses (that would be more at home in the dark ages) on a massive scale happen under Islam not just on a personal basis, BUT on a cultural, social, political and Governmental level?

You either think all these millions upon millions of Muslims of every race and creed from dozens of countries that carry out these acts/agree with these acts are all WRONG... or you have to accept the fact that they are what Islam is actually about.
And you are not.

And being a 'nice' person has nothing to do with Islam or any religion.
Surely you can be a nice, forgiving, peaceful woman without any man-made, man-run, man-ruled religion (and a religion is nothing to do with having faith) to cling to?

Islam has not made you a nice person...it could very well make you a nasty one though.
As I have seen to our cost in London.

Tonia posted:
"If some Muslims reject the Quran's demand for murdering unbelievers, they should still be entitled to think of themselves as Muslims".

So being a moderate Muslim IS about picking and choosing then. Like I said. Hardly makes them a true follower then does it?
These are after all meant to be DIVINE words of wisdom!
ALL of them.

And again this example of a moderate Muslim you use would seem to be one who does not agree with murder!
Is that what we call a moderate on Islam?
I ask again...does that not make Jerry Falwell a moderate then?

Many socially acceptable, culturally apporoved, legal and STATE SANCTIONED hardline acts carried out under Islam are not actually murder (though enough are) but in no way would they be considered moderate and YOU would not like to see any of them happen in America.

And are we saying The Pope, the big head human cheese of all the Catholic Church is wrong in the way he actually practices his religion?
Because if not the blatant Homophobia excused by religion, its vile sexism and direct repsonsibility for the increase of AIDS ion Africa is thanks 100% to Catholicism and TRUE belief in it.

You either accept that such vile doctrines ARE the word of God/Allah...or you don't!
It can't possibly be both ways!
You can't have a situation where followers accept SOME doctrines stated as coming from God's/his Prophet's mouths are true (those cozy ones that make us feel good and don't make us look bad) but don't accept other doctrines because they say nasty wicked things about people and what should be done to them!

The Quran is ALL the word and will of Allah, and as such MUST be followed 100% by those who follow his religion, or none of it is!

And this kind of contradictory, chaotic, (as well of course un-proven) rubbish is what casts a shadow over the entire world and all of us in it?!

To Tonio: Are you suggesting an entente between atheists and moderates? :)

To Victoria: I hope that one day there can be a better dialogue between religions on a "village market" level, but it is not the real issue that causes violence and misunderstanding between groups. I and several of my political science colleagues conjecture that identity politics drives the willful misconstrution between them. Identity politics simply means identifying one group with similar characteristics as good and all other groups without those characteristics as bad. Honestly, if it were not religion acting as a wedge between the West and the Middle East, it would be another form of identity: culture, wealth, eugenics, what have you. (Note: I do not intend to belittle the particular grievances of any group. I am speaking on a macro scale.) The real start of dialogue occurs only when the two groups at odds decide that fighting is no longer an option. Unfortunately, this usually occurs only when there is a common outside enemy that is more different than the two groups. So, unless extra-terrestrial creatures attack the planet earth or a giant race of insects declares war on humanity, it will be awhile before we figure out a way to discuss cross-identity differences in a civil, unpretentious way.

Thanks for the clarification, Victoria. For the purposes of my argument, whether the Bible and the Quran endorse atrocities on unbelievers is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is that the extremists act as if the endorsements were real. It still amounts to absolutists accepting someone else's view. The cancer of absolutism doesn't necessarily require scripture to fester. I have not been able to find anything about the Rapture in the Bible, but that hasn't stopped the sales of the "Left Behind" novels.

TONIO - thank you for your good intentions- but you misunderstand-
i do not "reject" the Qur'an- there is no demand for murdering unbeliever sin it- there is not even the word unbeliever it is kafir a toally different concept- which means one who conceals or covers up
the verb can also be applied to a farmer when he covers up his seeds with earth

kafir is one who has rejected the religion of islam after it has been fully presented to them

you are most likely referring to the 2 lines in the Quran that every evangelist misunderstands- misquotes and reads form a bad translation to begin with-

it is much deeper than the simplistic and barbaric interpertation that zealots seem to impose on it-

i dont need to reject any of it- there is no incongruity and i am in no way commanded to kill disbelievers- no muslim is-

i know my own religion and i do not need to pretend something is not there when it isnt.

if you care to know the truth about it go to an islamic website and find out
dont ask george bush at faithfreedom to interpert islam for you
ask the muslims themselves
but thank you for trying to give someone a way out its not necessary in the case of muslims

i wish atheists and christians didnt hate us so much and spread so much misinformation

(not you tonio)
peace

I'll try to make my point another way - if you're an atheist or if you're a believer who rejects absolutism, you are following the dictates of your own conscience. If you follow absolutist dogma, you are accepting someone else's view of religion, even if it is your own choice to do so. I'm not trying to denigrate the intelligence of absolutists. I'm saying that absolutist dogma does not care about the individual's conscience. Dogma wasn't designed for the good of anyone but the organization pushing the dogma.

I am a moderate muslim- i define myself.
terrorists, fundamentalists and atheists do not deine me or tell me what i can or cannot be through their own inaccurate or hastily garnered misinformation. i was not born into a muslim family- i did not marry into a muslim family- but through my own despair filled and earnest heart prayed and listened til i received my guidance- and guidance comes form everywhere- it only requires humility- quieting the ever chattering and attention needing mind- being still- maybe it doesnt work for you- but it doesnt diminish in any way my own very real and very penetrating self knowledge.

I have no insults for anyone.
i have never raised my hand or heart or wallet in violence to any creature on this planet-

I salute Baroness Neuberger for her beautiful words which was what i needed to hear.
i have been (out of respect for atheists)
not talking about my faith on this faith board-
out of moderation.

May the God of Abraham keep your mind like clear water and bless you madame- because you have touched me and your call for rational thought and belief did not fall on deaf ears.
peace

Dave Brock, while I agree with your point, that is not the point I'm trying to make.

I certainly agree that, for example, a literalist reading of the Bible constitutes a hardline religion. But many Christian denominations do not read the book literally, and they're not wrong for doing so.

I reject the very idea of a "true follower," because it implies that dogma is justified in demanding orthodoxy from adherents. In my view, dogma has no business doing that. If some Muslims reject the Quran's demand for murdering unbelievers, they should still be entitled to think of themselves as Muslims, no matter what others think. In fact, I think they should be commended for rejecting absolutist dogma, which I see as the real villain in this debate.

And what is a moderate anyway?

I've lost count of how many so called moderate Muslims hold beliefs and make statements that are not remotely moderate in any way!

When it comes to Islam it seems a moderate is someone who has not blown someone up, chopped off their head or called for such actions.
By that criteria then The Pope and Jerry Falwell are moderates!
I think not!

Actually look into what most moderates stand for, are apologists for, and believe in...and there is nothing remotely moderate about them at all.
Not actually pulling a trigger does not make you a moderate.

And again, moderates of hardline religions are quite simply not practicing that religion as they should be.
As such TRUE, devout followers take no notice of moderates at all because they see them EXACTLY like I see them...as not true followers anyway!
This has been made especially clear in the case of Islam.
A religion I might remind you that is so unforgiving and extreme (moderation is like oil on water) that it can't even live with itself peacefully and still insists on carrying out 1000 year old sectarian butchery in the 21st century.

Not only is killing a non-Muslim seen as a great and holy act (the Quran explicitly tells Muslims that non-Muslims must come over to Islam or face death), but killing as many fellow Muslims (who are seen as the wrong kind of Muslims) in a mosque or on their way to a shrine is also a worthy holy act!
It's even better if you die doing it!
And you can't reason with anything as extreme and hardline as THAT.

What is a "religious moderate"? I had always assumed that the phrase described people of faith who did not resort to harassment or violence to push their beliefs on others. In other words, a believer who respected others' freedom of conscience. The vast majority of atheists agree with that principle.

Harris has a legitimate point about the moderates giving cover to the extremists. Here is my question - is freedom of conscience compatible with personal religious belief? If atheists and religious moderates both act in ways that do not adversely affect others, is there a distinction between the two groups that is relevant to society?

I ask because the religious extremists choose not to care about the distinction. To them, if you do not follow their doctrines completely, you are evil and worthless and deserving of death. In their eyes, the moderates might as well be atheists.

physician-assisted suicide? I think you meant assisted dieing - having the right to choose ones own time to die, as opposed to suffer in pain and agnoy. If there is something 'above and beyond' then that is bewteen the person, their conscience and their god. Nothing to do with you, you are not the gods, though you are as unelected as them.

We know that the irrationality of mankind is behind fundamentalist belief, religion fosters this irrationality and makes it dangerous. Yes, aspects of religion are good and useful; therefore we should aim to uncouple the good aspects that helped our ancestors from the bad, and be firm against the bad. Just as we are with other types of criminal behaviour.

As yet, we are not 100% how what we call conscience works, except that it works better with experience, knowledge and age whilst holding certain mental attitudes. These seems to point to a more human origin of the phenomena, than the one you have come to accept.

Attacking a belief is not the same as attacking a human being, beliefs are ideas that need to be questioned, else they become dogmatic, fundamentalist and dangerous to the liberties of others.

We hear nothing from moderates, because they realise their ideas of god and their religion are less than that of the true believers, the fundamentalists they wish they try to become.

I heartily agree with Rabbi Neuberger. More moderate people of faith need to proactively join the dialogue on faith and values- particularly with more atheists and agnostics speaking up.

I am hopeful that a respectful dialogue between people from all backgrounds and points of convictions can develop in the public square. We should not write off perspectives like that of Dr. Dawkins, because there are many who hold such positions of skepticism, instead moderate people of faith should engage figures like Dr. Dawkins in dialoguing beginning with points of agreement around values and increasing mutual understanding,

Peace,

John from Pennsylvania

I disagree with the statement the problem with religious moderates is that they unwittingly give extremists cover by making the extremists' beliefs seem less ridiculously silly. The truth is that religious moderates aren't unwitting, don't have the courage to stand up to extremists and, I suspect, often agree with the extremist position and are relieved that someone else expresses it.
Growing up Lutheran in the 60s and 70s, I remember how wishy washy that church and its moderate members were about a prolonged and ridiculous Vietnam war. We see the same today from religious moderates.

There can be no 'moderates' in such extremist, unforgiving, unbending, ruthless Religions as Judiasm, Catholicism and especially Islam.

You can't have a devout follower of an extremist belief (and don't dare tell me that Judiasm, Catholicism and Islam are in anyway at all not extremist beliefs!) who is a moderate.

If you know any moderate Muslims they are quite simply not devout folowers and are simply 'pick 'n' choose' merchants.
Many times we have heard from the countless Jihadists that UK media allows to pollute our 'free' air that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.
And they are right.

If you know a moderate Catholic...they are not truly and devoutly following the religion.
Afterall, who would be deluded enough to call The Pope a moderate anything!

The fact is many people may call themselves Catholic and Muslim but don't actually follow much of what they should. They are not truly following the religion, it's as simple as that. As such they are in no way examples OF that religion.

A perfect example is this:
Many members of the Nazi party may have joined (another example of an extremist belief) purely to feel safe or because they felt there was no other way to have any kind of national identity.
At the same time they would have been sickened by what National Socialism really meant and what it really did and stood for.
But would any of us then describe the Nazi Party as a moderate organisation and belief system based on these non-devout members?
NO, we would not, because they are not true examples of it.
Because you can't have a devout belief in an extremist cause and be a moderate, and such people obviously don't represent the true meaning OF that belief.

And the same goes for Catholicism and Islam especially (and with Judiasm, as we saw in the embracing of Iran's 'Holocaust Denial' conference by truly devout Orthodox Jews), as TRUE following of the religion means you can't be help BUT be an extremist with some utterly disgusting views and wants that have no place in the 21st century.

This article says "The moderate voice has been a weak one"...well that is because the moderate voice of an extemist religion does not truly represent that religion.
As such we should simply have NO time for any of these hardline, man-made, religions to have ANY power of any kind outside of places of worship and their member's private homes.
And even then the law of the land and basic human liberties come first.

"the last gasp of those rationalists..."

Okay, next...

"Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue at least in part because it feels like the last gasp of those rationalists who think that you can only be a rationalist if you do not believe in God".

Barreness Julia Neutburger, utter Theodrivel!!!!

What makes you think that you this statement is true. Maybe it is what you want to believe but it is totally false.

The reason why Atheism is on the rise is that the worlds consciousness is being raised to become aware that there is no God and the religions of the world are inherently evil.

Seriously, I must not understand the meaning of being a moderate, nor how moderates upset the atheist palate. To claim that religious dogma is fixed and unmoveable is historically false. And whilst the Bible and Koran do derive historical authority from being divinely inspired (and thus beyond question), the moderate does not necessarily believe in its pure divinity. Nor does the moderate declare that religion has not/cannot cause evil. These are non-issues for religious moderates. For many of them, choosing religion is to have faith in an unseen presence through an historically vivid and evocative metaphor.

Moderates start in a weaker positon to fundamentalists and atheists due in large part becuase they have chosen their path based on some unique, emotional, and what some may call an irrational inclination that draws them to their particular religion (I will call it extra-rational until proven otherwise) and not on some auhoritative basis. The influences of culture and personal experiences have contoured the person's decision to choose their particular path. In contrast, fundamentalists can claim pure adherence to some "sacred" texts. Additionally, atheists can use simple rational empiricism to demand the proof and turn away when none can be provided (perfectly logical and sensible).

[Note: For the sake of brevity, I will forego dispensing with the argument against fundamentalism. How can one argue with someone else that says, "In Deuteronomy 23:12-14...?]

While choosing religion may not be a wholly rational decision, it does not make it less worthwhile to the individual. Nor does it mean the moderate is necessarily acting inconsistent with or using a "lesser" model of thinking than rationalism. In fact, I posit that rationalism is not the highest order of thinking; it is only one type of thinking. Without rationalism, we could not build the roads we need to travel places we want. But with only rationalism in our tool belt, there is nowhere to go.

Why choose Christianity over Islam, or Islam over Wicca? That is beyond the moderate's purview. Most moderates believe that, given different circumstances, they may suscribe to a different religion. But why choose religion or non-belief? The answer is because it makes sense to that person.

As an aside, I do not know what Rabbi Neuberger means by militant atheism. Does she intend to connote a parallel in the level of belief that religious fundamentalists hold? Or does she mean it more literally, that there are radical atheists out there being very in-your-face with their belief and taking political/terroristic action based on their atheistic beliefs? If so, it is news to me.

I do not understand how religious moderates can be moderate.

Either it's true or it's not. How can there be a halfway?

Either there is NO reason why I shouldn't be allowed to choose the time and place of my death (physician assisted suicide) or there isn't. Period. You want to say I can't do what I like with my body, then explain to me how the God who says this gets around the fact that he's a murderer, a rapist, and a general thug. Sorry if that sounds attacking - but please understand: I consider your god to be the fellow who started it all, by deciding I was sinful before I was even born. Well maybe if he dislikes us so much he should have wiped out Adam and built a new model, one that behaved the way it should, and then we wouldn't have to live our lives trying to guess what the heck is going on with our dysfunctional deity!

This is a big question. This is the question of whether I have the right to decide what to do with my body, tempered only by that which is demonstrably good or bad for society, on the one hand, vs. whether people claiming a direct link with a man in the sky get the right to set random rules based on their value systems being somehow better than everyone elses'. To me, it is impossible to forget that this superior god with his superior values thinks it's OK to stone children. That needs to be answered for. You can't get around it by saying, well, I just don't read that part of the book.

Moderates seem to feel that what's right and what's wrong, what's true or false, really isn't very important; that what matters is that we all act like we like each other.

Sometimes issues have to be resolved. Liking each other and all playing nicely isn't going to happen until the conflict is finished. You can choose the ground rules - how you'll fight - whether to choose a 'civilized' vs. a 'barbaric' approach, if you like, but just choosing to deal with a conflict by telling everyone to just please get along is not conflict resolution. It's denial, and it doesn't make conflict go away.

Because, yeah, I do think I should be able to do what I want with my own body. You're free to NOT choose assisted suicide if you want, of course!

Madam Baroness,
We will all wait with bated breath for you "moderates religious types" to get out there and "make your case...rationally" and of course, "reasonably". I wish you a lot of luck making a religious case with rationality. If ever there were an oxymoron it would be a "rationally religious belief". Rationality and superstition should never be used in the same sentence, Madam Baroness. You are talking hope and faith here and to try to confuse the issue might confuse the simple people but it will never convince anyone who actually thinks.

Religion Should Be Torn Down and Built Up Again

Edward Smith's citationof the Baptist paator's comment about Jews is FAR from an isolated case.

The thousands of years of indoctrination and battle line drawing (let alone anti semitism etc)
have so poisoned the tradition of religious thinking

that one thinks it would be better to tear it all down and start again.

My atheist sensibilities are largely in line with most of the Unitarian thinking and "theology" i have seen. One good model for spiritual community without dogmatic superstition ruling the thinking.

"With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew. For how in the world can God hear the prayer of a man who says that Jesus Christ is not the true Messiah? It is blasphemous."
- Pastor Bailey Smith (First Southern Baptist Church, Del City, OK)

Another special from religion's greatest hits. The dogmatism is astounding.

Nice Lady Lord: No Ideas

I regret to say that our fellow human adds no thought content to this discussion.

Moderation is lovely. Gays should have been moderate when people called them inhuman, as should blacks have been in the South in the 50's and 60's, rather than impolitely challenging the racist attitudes of America.

Further, our Lord above has little knowledge of this field. Someone who is mildly conversant with the issues knows that

Atheists have just as much "conscience", and ethical and moral sensibility, as believers. It is bred into us over thousands of generations of evolution. Even most apes obey the 4 moral laws that are included in the 10 commandments.

When such folks as Lady Neuberger deny all the history of the God of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, and say he really is a nice guy despite the evidence of the bible and koran, we should identify her Denial of Reality as such.

Some are oh-so-concerned about the tone of some of the responses to this essay. So uncivil. So, which of the the following phrases in the essay are most calculated to be insults to atheists?

"militant atheists"
"last gasps"
"particularly as seen in Islam"
"even if we do not use our beliefs and convictions to justify attacks on others."

This from the books by Dawkins and Harris -- presumably the militants she worries about?

I think the tone of the responses is about right.

'Militant atheism' is such a joke. who are you kidding?

If your beliefs are so fragile that reading a book and thinking feels like a militant attack, then it's a good thing they are being questioned.

Ashley says:

The challenge for atheists is developing alternatives to religious traditions that would help people take that final step.

Unrelated question: Just what is up with the House of Lords, anyway? Is it as laughable as it sounds? I always think of some kind of kindergarten or day care for noble wannabees where they can be watched after so they don't hurt themselves while playing.

Ann replies: If you want to help the cause of truth, you will need to stop insulting the people you say you want to help. Why stop the insults? For the simple reason that insults block comunication. If perhaps you don't know an insult when you hear one or toss one yourself, then go back to school and learn about the affective uses of words.

Ann O.

You write: "But the real question we should be asking is why those religious trends of moderate views, liberal Christianity, Judaism and Islam, have been so relatively ineffective in expressing their passionately held belief in God..."

The answer to this "real quuestion" is that they are ineffective because the three beliefs that you just cited -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- are incommensurable in even their moderate forms without ignoring essentially everything that defines them. That means in practice that acceptance of one of them is largely an accident of birth (followed by childhood indoctrination). That does not lead rational people accept them. Of course, fundamentalists will condemn your apostasy.

On another issue, your description of Dawkins' book is such a caricature that one could very reasonably wonder if you read it.

"Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"

Here's my response:

I don't think "vogue" is accurate; perhaps "on the rise," is more to the point.

The reasons are:

We are better educated.

Science is more easily available to greater numbers of educated people.

Religions offer no real indications of any emerging (global) future; in fact, they only create more violence and cultural fragmentation.

The Bush Administration's abuse of "faith based politics" to advance a radical right agenda, which has created global distaster and meanaces the Constitution.

We are a secular democracy and we all know that.

Important thinkers who oppose irrationalism in the public sector are publishing and speaking to the issue.

Finally, we don't need to be "atheist" to hold any of these views. If there is no God, there can be no "atheist". The burden of proof is always on the "believer," regardless of the belief.

No, there cannot be a productive conversation between people who insist upon irrational beliefs, and those who don't. That is why we have the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you.

Ashley:
Could you please expound on these words from yourself?
"the problem with religious moderates is that they unwittingly give extremists cover by making the extremists' beliefs seem less ridiculously silly."
Thanks
Jeff

Moderate Jews, Christians and Islamics start from a position of weakness, because you can only be a moderate Jew, Christian or Islamic by ignoring all of the crap behavior of your god in your respective holy books. To be fair, fundamentalists ignore and twist much as well, but to be a moderate you have to live in total denial of your god's proported legacy of rape, murder, and betrayal. Once you go down that road, why believe any of it?

As Sam Harris and others have expressed, the problem with religious moderates is that they unwittingly give extremists cover by making the extremists' beliefs seem less ridiculously silly. I think a fair and perhaps even large number of moderates cling to the social and cultural aspects of their religion without holding any real beliefs. The challenge for atheists is developing alternatives to religious traditions that would help people take that final step.

Unrelated question: Just what is up with the House of Lords, anyway? Is it as laughable as it sounds? I always think of some kind of kindergarten or day care for noble wannabees where they can be watched after so they don't hurt themselves while playing.

I do not know what a "militant atheist" is, even though you talk about this hypothetical group in the perjorative as if they were running around all over the place causing trouble. On the other hand, I often read about religious shrines, churches, mosques, and temples blown up, burnt, etc. The act is almost always done by members of some other religion (even if that religion is a cult like Maoist communism).

I will allow the possibility that some atheists are a bit too disrespectful of authority to be acceptable to a member of an anachronism like the House of Lords. Your distaste for such riff-raff is palpable.

Your "rationalist" argument that "God is the voice of consience within everyone" is certainly not going to rock any boats, it is benign and I commend you for that. But it is not in the least bit rational, even if it sounds "nice". It will not convince anybody who was not brought up with some kind of religious tradition from a young age, people who simply don't believe in the supernatural, who deny that scriptures are different from any other old literature, and who are tired of being maligned in a world being torn apart by religious wars.

The question is: should one believe in a metaphysical 'entity' for which there is no objective evidence?

To the extent that fundamentalists and so-called moderates provide no inter-subjectively verifiable evidence for God, they are in the same boat and richly deserve the ridicule reserved for believers in Thor or alchemy.

Norrie stole a little of my thunder. The moderates' dilemma is that the more aggressively and loudly they pursue their cause the more radical and fanatical they appear.

Okay, first we have Sally Quinn redefining "God" in a manner that virtually no church-going believers would define "God".

And now we have Julia claiming that there is a
"strongly held view that the human conscience is the voice of God within us". Sounds sort of Quakerish to me, and that's fine.

But, Julia, if our consciences are the "voice of God" then we don't need any "holy books". And if we don't need any holy books, why not propose that they all be burned and we all simply listen to our consciences?

Go ahead, Julia. Propose that Muslims burn their Korans, Jews burn their Old Testaments, and Christians burn their New Testaments.

We'll wait.

Extremism and fundamentalism are always more startling and attention-getting than moderation, so moderation will always have an uphill climb to prevail. Compare TV car chases with C-SPAN.

I strongly agree!