LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
zarq)
Christopher Hitchens has a new book out called God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. There's an article in September's Vanity Fair highlighting what he felt his most memorable experiences were while on his book tour, and it's a fun read.
Since he's currently thought of as a neocon, most of the people who would normally buy Hitchens' books are probably also religious."In the evening to debate with Marvin Olasky at the L.B.J. Library. Olasky is the man who coined the term "compassionate conservatism" and helped evolve Bush's "faith-based initiative." He's a convert from both Judaism and Communism. He tells the audience that his record as a married man improved after he became a Christian. I'm ready to believe it. He also mentions many nice people who do good things because of their faith. I reply that I am ready to believe that too, as long as it's admitted that many people behave worse because of their religion. My challenge: name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever. I have since asked this question at every stop and haven't had a reply yet.
Olasky's book on presidential morality (which sadly was written before this president took office) says that George Washington won the Revolutionary War because he forbade drinking and swearing in the ranks of his army, whereas the British forces were awash in immorality. I argue that the war was won largely by the French, who were not strangers to wine or oaths, and that the American troops at Valley Forge were much inspired by Thomas Paine, who may not have cursed all that much but who never left the brandy bottle alone and who thought that Christianity was a joke. Moreover, the Brits—indicted by Olasky for their indulgence in adultery and even buggery—did manage to hold on to Canada, India, much of the Caribbean, and much of Africa in spite of divine disapproval. "God on Our Side" is one of the oldest and weakest arguments in human history."
|
Christopher Hitchens' new book
Not sure if this is particularly Dominionist, but...
LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY Should U.S. threaten nuclear annihilation of Muslim holy sites for deterrence?  Why is it that people who believe we should nuke another country are allowed to procreate and vote? Here we are in the twenty-first Century and these people believe that violence solves all their answers and in God/Jesus' Name to boot. I'm sorry, if we look a few facts not every Muslim is a terrorist or threat to public society and that destroying a religious/holy site just leads us down a darker path. Its bad enough that religious zealots in the past as well as recent history destroyed holy sites in the name of their verison of GOD. Seriously its the long term outcome of retaliation is what concerns me, as well as serving as a rallying point for zealots. There is nothing scarier than zealotry driven people wether Christian, Muslim or other faith and destroying their icons to make a point just seals the deal for these people to justify their actions. The cycle of violence needs to be stopped, reason and logic should be used instead of bigotry and religious phobias/dementia to justify the destruction of anothers beliefs. While I perfer to debunk the whole Christian/religious deity Mythos like Richard Dawkins, I still like the pagentry of the church and think that the world would still be a moral place without GOD in it. A society doesn't need a deity to exist. But a deity needs society to exist. If a deity doesn't exist only the clergy are out of a job and I guess they don't like the thought of getting a real job. |