'It is RELIGION, not the number of gods, that is the problem.'

I tend to disagree Steven - totalitarianism is the problem. Hence, Judaism, Christianity (Catholicism), Islam, Stalinism, and Nazism all persecute 'the other' because they are monolithic ideologies.

In Stalinist and Nazi systems the whole purpose of society is to serve the dictator and his political party. In the monotheistic systems the whole purpose of society is to serve the the clerical class and its religious party. No big difference. The threat of violence against dissenters and free-thinkers is therefore inevitable.

Finally Steven - can you think of a conflict where the aggressor marched under the banner of Zen Buddhism? Not all religions are grossly intolerant or prone to violence. Only some are.

Ah, she's talking about something like "chador"! Hard to tell when they use bigot-speak like "raghead", "tea towels", etc.

But in chador too there's another case for entitlement to the "liberalist" title among some such fundie-branded "muslims" (those actually acknowledged, preferred and encouraged by the west's imperialistic Islamophobes). Many Turkish and Indonesian unis (among other countries) have expressly banned chador because some opportunistic female students used them as a way of infiltrating friends or hirelings to pose as themselves during exams. And a truly "free market" - as trumpeted by western oligarchs - would let them, would it not?

And on similarly "aspirational"-liberalist turf, there's a whole separate category of fetish-porn where ostensibly "Muslim" women "show its tits" (and not always as prostitutes). But if judged by empire-liberalists, especially those on record as having serious "race" baggage like meredith, such women must by their identity be deemed somehow "oppressed" and therefore needing liberation, including that of some approved form of market sexualization associated with western fashion and its various money-based gradings of caste/class.

Imagine the response among Muslims to such patronizing judgements and pronouncements about how Islam must change, when those who pass judgement on Muslims and Islam do not even know such factors as those I describe above.

Btw, Sir "Scruffy" Rushdie is hardly an oppressed dissident writer: he punted on inciting Iran's post-Shah theocracy and won his gamble. He wouldn't have got his knighthood - and his hands into the oligarchy's pants - without having provoked the fatwa in the first place. Great marketing, as we would expect from one of empire's most highly endorsed liberalist icons.

Then there's clown and uber-Islamophobe TR on Zen, missing entirely the several wars that Zen warrior-monks fought (almost exclusively) in Japan and Korea over centuries!

TR wrote:

Finally Steven - can you think of a conflict where the aggressor marched under the banner of Zen Buddhism? Not all religions are grossly intolerant or prone to violence. Only some are.

Dear TR,

Although the army marched under the banner of the Rising Sun the officer corps of the Imperial Japanese Army during WW2 were almost all Zen Buddhists. They were a notable violent group of men. John Ferguson examined 15 religions and wrote "War and Peace in the World's Religions". He found trends toward both violence and nonviolence in all of them. Many Buddhists are peaceful, but definitely not all of them. Islam conducted a nonviolent jihad in the nineteenth century. Christianity contains the Society of Friends or Quakers. Judaism has the Jewish Peace Fellowship which promotes pacifism and the refuseniks who refuse to serve in the occupied Territories. The 15 religions that Ferguson examined both promote violence and nonviolence.

david f's courteous response shows that part of my post was quite out of order and against forum etiquette. Worse still from my own reflection on it, the name-calling was grossly stigmatizing for those many wise, intelligent and fair-minded who paint their faces for their important work as circus entertainers. I remind us all here: that sector of the workforce overwhelmingly does NOT seek to incite inter-religious, anti-religious or related ethnic hatreds.

'Then there's clown and uber-Islamophobe TR on Zen, missing entirely the several wars that Zen warrior-monks fought (almost exclusively) in Japan and Korea over centuries!'

Well, you're an Aladdin's Cave of information mil-observer. Therefore, I stand corrected, Steve Meyer is right after all - religion IS the problem. I was just trying to be nice.

As for calling me a 'clown' - Allah and all her Prophets must be reclining in a state of orgasmic pleasure at your witty reposte on their behalf. Not to mention the sheer relief of having someone like yourself to stick up for them. I wonder, what her omnipotentence would do without you?

I dunno - maybe just fumble around the keyboard in tremors of "omnipotentent" Islamophobic self-arousal.

But hey, some profound "Zen" stuff could still be an impressive fashion statement for your lounge room, in an entirely liberalist, non-monotheistic and "Islamo-sceptical" sense of course. But that and Islamophobic rants won't be enough for guests - be sure to try some juggling too.

Then the puerile equation "war + religion = religion BAD"; a regular genius at work. In fact, underpinning all wars have been human beliefs, delusions and other attitudes that cover all humanity at some time - including of course various liberalists, and those more pathologically affected with their special and fashionable obsession about Islam.

So if you're so simple as to think that humanity itself must be "the problem", follow my advice to OLO's many Malthusians: try leading by example and showing consistency with those shallow principles by topping yourself.