An example of fundamentalist religion stultifying reason has been generously provided to us by Philo:

>>> For instance you always believe 12+12=24, you do not have to question it each time you use it. Someone taught it to you. <<<

12 + 12 will always equal 24, because it is a fact; not a matter of faith. Irrespective of whether the equation is expressed in English, Cantonese or in the original Arabic; 12 items added to 12 items will result in a total of 24.

Such confusion between fact and faith is another unfortunate result of fundamentalist thinking. We can never know if there is a god - there is no substantial evidence, merely beliefs. That Philo confuses maths with faith is very disturbing and another reason to keep religion out of schools, and why we must remain vigilant to the constipation that religious dogma places on the path to reason and knowledge.

Dear Steven,

You state:

"Dawkins nowithstanding there are non-religious
idealogies that are every bit as loathsome
as some religious ones. Stalinism comes to
mind..."

Interesting...

That statement would need a lot more discussion
Steven than with the word limit that we're allowed
here. Of course there are many "isms" that would
qualify. However in regards to Stalin, or even
Hitler, I'm not sure that they did evil deeds
because they were atheists. That is an assumption.
It is also illogical. Even if we accept that Hitler
and Stalin shared atheism in common, they both also
had moustaches, as did Saddam Hussein, so what?

The question is not whether evil individual
human beings were religious or were atheists, but
whether religion or lack of it influences people
systematically to do bad things. There is no
evidence that Stalin's atheism motivated his brutality.

David f,

Wilberforce was a Christian upholding Christian beliefs. Given the title of the book FG Wood would focus on that rationalization. In reality it was just one of the things they used to rationalize the barbaric practice. They also argued based on economics, history, legality, social good and humanitarianism but would you criticize those other things had a role in promoting and sustaining it? Christianity doesn’t support that type of slavery. Philo pointed out that the scriptures that, according to FG Wood, slave owners used to justify slavery clearly don’t apply to the type of slavery involved.

Even if (and I haven’t seen it before but it could explain the current situation) the South had a higher proportion of Christians than the North that doesn’t mean that Christianity can be blamed for their fighting hard to keep slavery. I suspect the economic convenience would be a more logical explanation. That is like saying that Christianity condones divorce because in the same area divorce rates are higher for Christians than others. Charles Carroll's wrote “The Negro, A Beast”. That doesn’t mean that African Americans are beasts. Like the slave owners it is a dodgy rationalization.

John Hope Franklin is probably correct that West Africans had that perception of Christianity if that is when their slavery commenced. However I note that there is some controversy on that point.
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/slavery/p/SlaveryTypes.htm

In any case people in a better situation to observe American slavery being the Southern religious organizations comprised of African Americans during the slavery period expressed a different view in their songs eg. “People Talk About Heaven Ain't Going There”

The issue isn’t whether or not the people were real Christians although some like those African Americans obviously have suspicions but what Christianity has to say on the topic and what the history indicates. Historically there is Paul teaching non-discrimination. One of the first Pope’s being a former slave. Slavery arising within Christian based societies and slavery within Christian based societies being abolished by Christians. The big historical picture shows as do the scriptures that slavery is inconsistent with the religion.

Dear Severin,

You are one of my favourite posters, but I have to take issue with you.

You wrote: 12 + 12 will always equal 24 ... whether the equation is expressed in ... in the original Arabic.

Arabic numbers originated in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals

The Arabic numerals ... are descended from the Hindu-Arabic numeral system developed by Indian mathematicians...and... were adopted by the Persian mathematicians in India, and passed on to the Arabs further west.

There is no evidence that the plus sign as a mathematical symbol existed before 1672.

http://www.roma.unisa.edu.au/07305/symbols.htm#Plus

Hodder in 1672 wrote "note that a + (plus) sign doth signifie Addition, and two lines thus = Equality, or Equation, but a X thus, Multiplication," no other symbols being used.

The relationship is eternally valid, but it would not have been expressed in that manner until the seventeenth century. I don't know how the relationship was originally expressed.

One way in which mathematics has advanced is the use of symbolism to express complex ideas in a compact notation. If one studies the history of mathematicians one should take note of the primitive mathematical symbolism that the Greeks, Indians, Romans, Egyptians, Arabs etc. had available. Knowing that makes their discoveries even more impressive.

Dear mjpb,

My point to Philo was that he chose to mention the Christianity behind the opposition to slavery but chose not to mention the Christian support of slavery. That point is still valid.

The slave's inspiration from scripture for freedom comes almost completely from the Jewish Bible with its tale of the exodus.

Christianity absorbed those scriptures, but the New Testament does not question the instution of slavery.

It is fairly typical for Christians as well as other people to cherry pick instances when they want to make a case for their particular superstition. The incompatibilty between Christianity and slavery is a recent discovery.

mjbp....*sigh* ? ? err.. u lost me bro.. please expand a tad.

Steven

*one of the defining characteristics of fundamentalists is the desire to impose their beliefs on others by force or intimidation.*

I respectfully disagree mate. I have no desire whatsoever to "impose by force or intimidation" (though CJ might drag up my jibe about 'ur on the list for imposition' :)

That's not 'fundamentalism'.... it's 'extortion'... it might be a lot of things, but it isn't fundamentalism in the sense of people adhering strictly to a set of doctrines.

If those doctrines are like those of the Ahmadi Muslims for example.. they do not include 'violent jihad'...they are the only Muslim sect which has specifically disavowed violent Jihad.

A 'fundamentalist' Christian... even one of the worst examples of 'ungraciousness' Pastor Fred Phelps... "godhatesfags.com" never uses anything other than signs or shouts....

Those who have done worse.. abortion clinics etc.. well..I have no clue where they got their ideas from but it surely was NOT the New Testament (which is the framework for understanding the old for Christians)
So we cannot call such people fundamentalist 'Christians' they are something....but not Christian.

FRACCY... you say: "However, I find Christianity to be of equal concern,..it is insidious" (no generalized stereotyping or vilification there eh)

I find THAT of great concern.

Islam..permits child sexual abuse. (refer AJ Phillips brilliant and honest post)

Christianity specifically forbids child abuse. (Jesus words)

What do you fear from Christianity ? You have a phobia mate..
"irrational fear"... if we already have the Lords prayer opening parliament.. don't you think 'we' would have done our worst you by now ? if we were to be feared ? Insidious indeed... 'there for all to see' is more like it. Why do you vilify us without reason ?
Steve Fielding.. a religious NUTTER? nice stuff....and definitely not 'vilification'...right ?

Foxy: “However in regards to Stalin, or even Hitler, I'm not sure that they did evil deeds because they were atheists.”

Dear Foxy,

Hitler’s atheism is a myth.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations
Compiled by Jim Walker
Originated: 27 Feb. 1997
Additions: 03 Jun. 2006

Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today's Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.

Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:
________________________________________

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them...etc.

Hitler’s Christianity is an embarrassment to Christians.