"For example, in the 1997 film Kundun, Chairman Mao Zedong, in a face to face encounter with the Dalai Lama, tells him that “religion is poison”. Could anyone argue that the cult of Mao was not a religious phenomenon?"

Err... yes, one could certainly argue that. The cult of Mao was, ultimately, a political phenomenon. How do you define "religious", here?

I think the religious will always try to dream up reasons
to put down the various secular movements, to me this is just another
attempt.

At the end of the day, if religion gives you the imaginary
friend that you feel you need to cope with life, well fine, go
right ahead! Just count me out.

Don't confuse religion with the secular either.

As ever, Sellick seems unable to comprehend a wider universe in which his religion is but one of a number of ideologies around which people orient and organise themselves. In my understanding of the various definitions of religions (as discussed by Pericles above) the common feature that distinguishes them from other ideologies is the fundamental notion of of faith in some supernatural being/s or forces.

It would seem to suit Sellick's project to try and reduce ideologies based in the real world to the same ontological level as his fundamentally supernatural religious ideology. I guess that's why he persists in boring us with his pretentious 'theological' diatribes in this forum.

I await another bleat about how hard it is to have a decent theological discussion in this forum :P

CJ,

"I await another bleat about how hard it is to have a decent theological discussion in this forum."

Certainly seemed akin my experience with the "How does God exist?" topic. He couldn't rationalise HIS religion within history and anthropology, but saw OTHER religions as myths. Yet, what is accepted and what is rejected share a common architecture. I even tried countering with one of Peter's favoured authors (Alasdair MacIntyre), regarding his taking a piori positions. Just ignored. Same treatment towards some serious historians

It seems where there is a belief in god ignorance and blatant dishonesty prevail. It is now evident that superstition warps the mind and Christianity is a glowing example of that. Religion is the belief in magical beings wielding magic to create or influence the physical world. The magic is non-existent and requires faith (unquestioned hope that myth becomes true) which is based on paranoid superstition. Walking under ladders or not worshipping a god leads to hell or a smiting. Christians are in essence denialists denying reality, their own history and everything that contradicts them, which is almost everything and this is why nature is offensive to Christian sensitivities. Christian hatred towards the Chinese because communism is seen as secular by Christians is extraordinary. The reason is that communism in China as it was in the former USSR and most other communism is/was more moralistic than Christianity. Communism is a moralist movement as was fascism. Hitler preached the purity of clean living. Christendom cleansed the world of pagans, Hitler, the Roman Church and Stalin tried to cleans the world of Jews. The other interesting fact is that communism was invented by Christians and for 500 years communism was living to Christs teachings. The other amazing thing is the values and Morals Christians claim were invented by the Chinese by Taoists long before Jesowa and her God husband were deposed by Hebrew rebels and out of the killing fields erected Jehovah as their newly invented misogynistic god king.
Truth and knowledge are the arch enemies of poor old Jehovah (and Allah) and the problem with secularism which has brought with it freedom, liberty and equality is a free exchange of knowledge and science which apparently is terminal cancer for god(s).
Fascinating how Christians attack secularism and the freedom, liberty and equality that goes with it as Christians have to be humoured and treated with kit gloves so as not to offend them. The belief in god is the supreme form of immaturity, Christians should appreciate that they are not laughed at, spanked and made to stand in the corner.

The reaction to my previous post suggests that when it comes to the Bible, it's always about "context" as well as a multitude of interpretations, yet most people selectively quote from the Koran as if it were a literal unambiguous document.

If there is one negative statement made but several contradictions to that statement exist, it's the negative one that draws all the attention.

Hitler and the Nazis obtained justification for their beliefs and actions directly from his (albeit flawed) interpretation of the Bible and it's been the basis of many other organisations, from the Salvation Army to the Ku Klux Klan and everyone in between.

It's been said that you can tell what dominates a society from the relative height of it's buildings.

In medieval days, the Church steeple or Mosque was the dominant feature of most cities and large towns.

In the centuries that followed, Government buildings - from Town Halls to Houses of Parliament grew much larger and more imposing than their neighbours.

Now we have corporate skyscrapers overwhelming the skyline - but we can always fall back onto Holy books whenever it suits, to justify whatever actions we need to take to keep the economic and social engines running.