UCSB Scientist Takes On Religion

"They (Judaism and Islam) are politically wielding. People who believe in those religions, if they wish to see religiously related legislation enacted, can pick up their text and say, “it says right here.” Jews and Muslims both have a text that says believers are supposed to run their own society. The New Testament, unbeknownst to most Christians, says the opposite."

But then Mates says: "The principle thing is the idea of being politically active, which Jesus refused to do and Paul didn’t do."

The two points contradict each other.

Mates *is* anti-Christian and contradicts himself. At least he should be honest.

Mates and The Independent need not worry about the influence of the dreaded Religious Right however; any cursory look at Western culture shows that the influence of Christianity has pretty much disappeared. "Baby Mama/Baby Daddy" has replaced the concept of marriage, gangsta rappers are now considered "artists" and so forth.

The Religious Right are naïve stooges who are still (after all these years) convinced the Republican Party cares about them while clearly the Republican Party has many aspects to it (the plethora of candidates who are on their second and third wives) which are un-Christian. These people are no different from the Progressives who are convinced that the Democratic Party somehow cares about our civil rights and is anti-imperialist even thought the evidence shows otherwise.

So much foolishness.

Incidentally, if those who mock Christianity in the U.S. mocked Islam in Muslim countries they would not get the same free pass as they do here.

Just remember what happened to Salman Rushdie when he published the Satanic Verses and what happened when that cartoon was published in Denmark a few years ago.

Perhaps Mates should move to Saudi Arabia and treat Islam as he does Christiany and see how welcome he feels there.

Bill, Erin Lennon was intentionally contrasting the roles of Judaism and Islam vs Christianity, where the respective religions predominate. One point, not two.

Also, not to revere is not to "mock."

@billclausen: "Just remember what happened to Salman Rushdie when he published the Satanic Verses and what happened when that cartoon was published in Denmark a few years ago."

I'll also remember the Army of God and the Westboro Baptist Church and the Catholic League (and, historically, the Crusades and the Catholic Church's silence during the Holocaust and... shall I go on?)

Religion has useful aspects to it, until it gets into the hands of men (mostly) who use it for their own ends (See: "Life of Brian") and manipulate others through appealing to the inborn fears affecting most humans searching for "significance" (See" "Meaning of Life"). Religious-based strife will continue as long as individuals remain uncomfortable with not knowing the unknowable and who refuse to understand that 'moral behavior' does not depend or need religion to justify it. Evolution favors energy conservation, ultimately, and being good (kind, compassionate, cooperative, happy) saves a whole bunch of energy. That's it. That's all there is until the whole thing blinks out in the maw of a hungry black hole and gets spit out to start over somewhere else in this whole improbable miracle.

"Perhaps Mates should move to Saudi Arabia and treat Islam as he does Christiany and see how welcome he feels there."

I'm pretty sure Mates understands that Saudi Arabia is a theocracy. What I don't understand is your point. In this country we have freedom of speech, even if that speech is used to analyze the role of religion in politics. So you think anyone who exercises that right should instead move to a theocracy where they can't?

It seems kind of like saying women who drive should try going to Saudi Arabia where they can't.

@billclausen.

Please read the paragraphs you quoted more carefully before critiquing. There is no contradiction.

Secondly, even if he were contradicting, which he isn't - to assume it necessarily equates dishonesty (before double checking your own read, or ruling out the possibility of a copy error) belies the likelihood you were looking for faults from the get go; as does your follow up comment in which for some reason you imply he is being ungrateful for his American freedom of speech?

This guy is the one of the most theist friendly of secularists I've read- (esp in terms of religions place in politics) He argues that it's unreasonable to ever expect religion to fall away or be excluded from the public square-which is quite a controversial notion among freethinkers AND believers in favor of separation of church and state; many of whom staunchly agree religion should be kept OUT of the public square.

I wonder what's at the root of this bitter tone you take toward the author. Is it that he is a secularist?

Back to his thesis- or one of them; that Jesus was apolitical and Old Testament followers have more grounds for blending religion and politics, than New Testament followers... I 'd be curious to hear the response from politically active progressive Christian friends.

I'll also remember the Army of God and the Westboro Baptist Church and the Catholic League (and, historically, the Crusades and the Catholic Church's silence during the Holocaust and... shall I go on?)

-EatTheRich-

So what about today? Where would you rather live, the Middle East or America?

The author was talking about modern times, not the Crusades. If you keep the conversation on point we can have a fruitful discussion.

Since you bring up the Catholic Church and the Westboro Baptist Church let me address your points.

What is more relevant about the Catholic Church is the present-day issue of child rape. The Crusades are not a current threat. The WBC only has about 200 members and while they annoy you, they are not a threat to you, or anyone else, so why do you obsess about them?

As for the Army of God, I have not even heard of them. There is however, a group of fringe Baptists called the Independent Fundamentalist (or Fundemental--I can't recall) Baptist church and THEY are far more of a problem than the groups you mention. (Child rape/oppression of women)

When I look at the worldwide scene I see no systemic oppression by Christians of other groups which means that A: Christianity has changed for the better, or B: there simply are not enough Christians to oppress others. Which is it?

I do however, see that in Muslim countries, civil rights for non-Muslims is often ignored, and women are often not treated the same as in Western countries.

I also see good ol' North Korea still doesn't treat Christians very well.

We can obsess about past wrongful deeds, but I'd rather live in the present and try to make a better future and the fact is Christian (nominal or otherwise) are not the ones depriving (systemically) people of human rights.

When all is said and done, the road rage, schoolyard shootings, gang problems, and breakup of families cannot be blamed on the Catholic Church or the Westboro Baptist Church, but when people are scared, angry, and feel helpless, someone has to be the scapegoat.

While some of you are worried about fringe elements claiming to be Christians, you should be really worried about this:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three...

I'm worried about the potential presidents who appear to think we'd be better off as a theocracy http://www.thefamilyleader.com/thanks...

I'm worried that so many people equate "not kissing Christianity's ass" with "mocking it".

I'm worried that the response to criticism of the role of religion in politics in this country is "Well, you should try Saudi Arabia!"

(and yes, that I'm worried about all that doesn't mean I'm not also worried about the suspension of Habeus Corpus)

@billclausen: "When I look at the worldwide scene I see no systemic oppression by Christians of other groups which means that A: Christianity has changed for the better, or B: there simply are not enough Christians to oppress others. Which is it?"

It's C: You turn a blind eye to "systemic oppression by Christians of other groups" because it suits you.

It's ironic that you find reactionary Muslims a problem, but when it's reactionary Christians, well... you have better things to worry about.

I'm going to refrain from entering into the fray about the intent of the article. However, the crap that EatTheRich is slinging about relative equivalency between Muslims and Christians cannot be defended and we're the last significant Western Country to be in denial. The Progressive's spent decades telling us what lovely egalitarian societies existed in Western Europe. Guess what, each and every one of them have found out that Muslims have refused to integrate fully into their society. France, Denmark, Italy, Germany, England; the list goes on and on.
Any one nutty Christian is as bad as any one nutty Muslim. The problem is that unless you use the ancient historical referent to the Crusades, the sheer volume of Muslim idiots TODAY is so far beyond the total number of Christian idiots today that the comparison is specious. The ratio is over a million to one.
It's strangely fashionable for Progressive's in America to bash Christianity. This would be OK I guess if they also stated the truth that Islam, unlike Christianity, has not moved forward in hundreds of years and there are entire Muslim countries that use their religion as the very basis of overt discrimination and hatred from the government on down.
Don't get me started on the lovely Muslim Brotherhood traipsing about killing any Christians that get in their way...

@italiansurg: "The problem is that unless you use the ancient historical referent to the Crusades, the sheer volume of Muslim idiots TODAY is so far beyond the total number of Christian idiots today that the comparison is specious."

You know what's brilliant... this article has NOTHING TO DO with Muslims. Zip. Zero. Nothing. Yet the Christian apologists can't help but bring Muslims into any and all critiques of Christian fundamentalism as if reactionary Muslims are somehow a justification for Christian wrongdoings.

@italiansurg: "This would be OK I guess if they also stated the truth that Islam, unlike Christianity, has not moved forward in hundreds of years and there are entire Muslim countries that use their religion as the very basis of overt discrimination and hatred from the government on down."

This is a complete and utter pile of BS. Any forward movement of Christianity has occurred with a huge part of the Christian population kicking and screaming every step of the way (e.g. the Enlightenment, etc) - and, more recently, doing it's best to take us back (Intelligent Design anyone?). To pretend that, on it's own, the churches are these forward thinking bodies is to either ignore history or intentionally rewrite it.

Not to mention that the West has spent the better part of the last century doing its best to screw up the Middle East as much as possible, but hey... I'm sure you'll deny that as well.

Of course Intelligent Design is oxymoronic, but they're simply selling idiotic ideas, not enforcing they're rules or killing those who oppose them. Funny how our Constitution has kept them in check over the years despite an occasional aberration. Get a grip

@italiansurg: "Of course Intelligent Design is oxymoronic, but they're simply selling idiotic ideas, not enforcing they're rules or killing those who oppose them."

The fact that FAR more Muslims have perished at the hands of your superior Western Christian culture would render your statement beyond ridiculous.

"It's C: You turn a blind eye to 'systemic oppression by Christians of other groups' because it suits you.

It's ironic that you find reactionary Muslims a problem, but when it's reactionary Christians, well... you have better things to worry about." -EatTheRich-

So you're saying Muslim countries (Jordan and Mubarak's Egypt being notable exceptions) are more free than the Western World?

"this article has NOTHING TO DO with Muslims. Zip. Zero. Nothing." -EatTheRich-

But the title of the article says "UCSB Scientist Takes On Religion
Thomas Mates Discusses his new book, A Judeo-Islamic Nation"

Isn't Islam the religion of Muslims? And why can't I get rid of this annoying dotted line below what I write?

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

Let me explain what your problem is EatTheRich, and it's a problem that is emblematic of doctranaire idealogues.

You love to pick at the scabs of the past. It's like the putative intellectuals in the academic world (as opposed the the actual intellectuals in the academic world) who dwell on slavery, the discrimination of the past, etc. Rather than allow for healing and yes--"reconciliation" (a popular buzz word of the Left) they in reality have no interest in healing, brotherhood, and progress as they hide behind their race/religion-baiting with terms such as "tolerance" and "multiculturalism". The common thread behind bigots is that they seek out the worst elements of the demographic/s they hate and harp on it by concentration on the few in the group that *are* terrorists, bigots, oppressors and so forth, and there is clearly a double standard when it comes to what "tolerance" is.

As I pointed out before, the influence of the good--and bad--elements of those who claim Christianity as their religion have waned considerably over the last four decades. If I have to explain it to you, then I'd have to explain to you the difference between right and left. In short, the culture war is pretty much over and your side won--so get over it.

I don't know you, are your backround, maybe you/your ancestors where oppressed by those claiming to by Christian, maybe you were forced to go to a church were you saw un-Christian behavior and are convinced that most Christians are that way, or maybe the idea of a God that sets a standard that isn't always user-friendly enrages you, I don't know, but clearly to be that reactionary agaist a nonexistant threat is silly.

Comparing Christianity of today to the Crusades is like saying that most White people still favor slavery.

For a country which is so racist and so theologically draconian the U.S. sure attracts a lot of people to it, doesn't it?

As I said before, your side won the culture war, Christianity is pretty much out, here is the key, and don't forget to turn off the lights when you go to bed.