'Behold the Lamb!'

(... not a call to arms, or biffo, but to a profound review of what it means to speak and do the truth, in a world that has lost its way).

All-,

Not sure if I follow all your post, but the proposition that Zoroastrianism influenced the development of Hebrew monotheism is makes sense given the geographical and historical setting of the early development of Judaism. I don’t know a lot about the cultural antecedents of Islam, but I understand that the Persian religion had some influence on near contemporaneous Gnostic Christian traditions as well.

My point, though, is that the names we might use for God – whether Allah, Jesus, Yahweh or Azura Mazda – or whether we even see the need to name a God – are culturally (and linguistically) determined. They've developed within a history of ideas. We can debate whether one cultural interpretation is superior to another: whether one nails the human experience of the ineffable any better than another; but as soon as we use our own religious beliefs to justify war, or murder, or terrorism, or any other denial of the dignity of others, we have crossed that subtle line into madness.

Fair enough TRTL, perhaps the word "outlaw" was a little strong, since it does bring with it overtones of oppression, and oppression begets revolutionaries, and revolutionaries are generally considered heroic.

So perhaps we should start by eliminating subsidies. Being a religious sect has always meant tax relief - do away with it. They have special treatment in any number of subtle ways, from noise pollution (church bells, muezzin etc.) to favourable zoning laws. End such favouritism.

Then we should move on to education. Religion should be addressed within the education system along with all the other odd human behaviours, such as the practices of the headhunter tribes of Borneo, or Victorian spiritualists.

We should also begin to reject religion as an excuse by which an individual avoids responsibilities, or as a justification for unsocial behaviours.

In short, it is time to end the concept of religion having "favoured nation" status, and start treating it as a disease from which an enlightened humanity needs to be fully cured.

Boaz, you still don't get it. My point is not whether one particular religion is superior to another ["CONTRAST: 1/ Oppressed Muslims FIGHT. 2/ Oppressed Christians share Christ."] but whether organized religion has any place at all in our society.

For a start, without it there would be no need for headlines such as "Muslims and Christians must learn to work together as a unified body in the Middle East."

Before they learned to walk upright, monkeys lived in trees and fought with other monkeys outside their own group.
Then ,after learning to walk upright, they began to learn how to use weapons instead of their teeth and as time passed, the weapons became more and more sophisticated.
But they were still monkeys.
The highest echalon of monkeys installed themselves as leaders, prime ministers, popes and ayatollahs thus making sure they got the cream of everything.
Religion should be used as a comfort blanket, not as an excuse for war.
Every wise monkey knows that.

Firstly, boaz:

"1/ Oppressed Muslims FIGHT.
2/ Oppressed Christians share Christ."

Fair point, but look at the numbers. Islam is a huge religion. I've heard figures like one in four people worldwide are islamic, and while I'm not sure if that's true, it probably isn't far off.

The question that needs to be asked is - how many of these people are poor / oppressed?

Compare that to Christianity - yes, there are plenty of poor Christians, but the proportions are out of whack. The worlds most powerful people are christians. If the shoe was on the other foot, the fundamentalist Christians would fight just as those of fundamentalist islam - we've the lessons of the IRA to show us what that looks like.

Pericles - what you propose would suit me right down the line - i've very little need of ritualistic religion. The problem here, is there are people who see the world through those eyes. I can think of them as misguided, sure, but no doubt they think the same of me. The crux here, is how exactly is secularism different to a religion?

Try this perspective - each religion (except maybe the Buddhists, and you gotta love em for it) thinks their way is the only way, and the others are all wrong - how is this different to agnosticism / atheism?
The only real difference I've seen, is that agnosticism is still tolerant and accepting of the other faiths - a secular society would rob them of that, so in a way, secularising the nation would result in it resembling a kind of religion in terms of tolerance... I think (does that make sense to anyone else?).

What I'd like to see, is ways to have religions be more tolerant and intermixed - one big happy faith family, something the author was kind of getting at in a more compartmentalised fashion.
I agree with your proposals pericles, but thats as far as I'd want to take it - strip religions of any props to set them apart, but live and let live.

Which one of you learned people knows the mind of god? Who in this forum is sufficiently bigoted, to claim their religion is the right one or better than another?

“In order to attract followers and to propagate its belief systems, a religion has to be exclusive - i.e. to specifically exclude those who choose not to participate in its rites and rituals. This automatically creates an "us and them" disparity…”

Spot on, Pericles.