Let the games begin.

Let's face it. How often does atheist literature influence someone who's religious? If you're an adult and believe the same thing you believed when you were four, for the same irrational reasons, I don't think you'll be particularly amenable to any logic which will part you from your blissful delusions.

Why wasn't respect for the beliefs or lack thereof extended to the author? It seems those of us who wish to be free from religion must respect those who wish to flaunt their religion but can not expect any respect for our desire neither to participate nor to believe.

Would you take off your shoes at the door if your host asked you to do so?

Would you take off your shoes at the door if your host asked you to do so because it was part of their tradition/culture/religious faith?

That was bad manners, at the least.

The point is - you were in his/her home with those traditions and customs. You imposed your beliefs in a private setting. The evening SHOULD have been strained because of your bad manners. I am not Catholic but when I walk into a church I abide by their rules. When I am at a Catholic friend's home and they pray before dinner, I just silently listen. It is of no concern to me that they do something vastly different. The point for you however, is to make a point. This was a private affair and I should note - most observant jews view their home as a sacred place, one where they uphold their values in the highest regard. The fact that they do that 'with a hat' is just your own deficiency of respecting religion.

If you as an atheist had some tradition that a Jew, Catholic or religious person felt disobeyed their faith, I strongly suspect they would abide by your expectations.

Bad form. Bad manner. Bad way of trying to make a point.

By the way, I'm not religious. But you are an example of using private religious observance in an intolerant way.

Regards, Matt

Nicely put Matt.

If you are invited to someones home the least you could do is respect them as your host.

Instead the author decided to make a situation of some discomfort to himself, uncomfortable to everyone. He is much like a guy that farts in the middle of a crowded subway car.

People like that belong on their own planet.

Suppose the Jew were to be invited for dinner to a different friend's house...a house where the ideology is expressed by wearing arm bands. The host's arm band has a swastika and the jews has a star. Is the jew suppose to swallow his pride and wear it? Should he just leave?

Just wonderting how far this situation can possibly to go? Where is the line between bad manners and standing up for a personal ideal?

If it were me, I would probably wear the hat out of respect, but if the topic of dinner conversation were to get theological, I would probably be what many would/have called disrespectfull.

They never leave it alone after you say "I dont believe in god". Why is that?

CB.

Mr Holcomb,

A host should never insist on imposing their customs and rituals on their guests. For example, in some cultures wine is served to children at dinner. The host (not the guest) would be considered very rude if they insisted on serving the guest's child wine against the parent's wishes. Let's suppose that a guest is willing to take part in a custom, for example eating with chopsticks, but is unable to do it well. The good host would bring a fork and knife to the table in seeing their guest's struggle.

The point isn't to make sure your guests are following the same customs but to enjoy each others company. Everyone has their own customs they are comfortable with.

If for some reason, the host feels the guest MUST follow the customs, the host should state this when the invitation is made so that his friend has a chance to politely decline.

I was going to leave a comment but MISS MANNERS has covered it nicely.

jimi flo: "He is much like a guy that farts in the middle of a crowded subway car."

1) This makes no sense as a comparison 2) You made me laugh out loud nonetheless 3) You senseless, hilarious poster

A guy that farts in a subway is not trying to make a point. He is simply an insensitive asshole who needs to relieve himself, relying on the fact that nobody could know who "dealt it."

Hardly an apt analogy to an atheist who does not feel comfortable shallowly taking part in a ritual in which he cannot relate to. I took it as a respectful thing, in that he did not wish to put on the skull cap because he felt it would be an insincere gesture (I agree with him in this sense). It seems more polite to be honest and genuine, and simply give deference to others' traditions.

Besides, why shouldn't the atheist's view be equally respected?

I find it so ironic that in this wonderful blogoshpere we have created we lash out and attack each other and defend our beliefs with fevered passion. But in these examples we act as if the people involved are spineless victims who are being assaulted by traditionalism. As if one were to speak out in someone's home "ya know what Bob.... I just don't agree with that and here's why.... WWIV would break out. I see nothing wrong by respectfully disagreeing with some one in there home. What are we really? Timid kittens in real life but vapid monsters in blog-o-land? I feel that is probably the case more than not.

To Miss Manners: Let's reverse this, then. Could an observant Jew, a devout Muslim and practicing Catholic then insist on praying in their respective manners at the Atheist's house? Should the Atheist say 'Have at it' and then let's have a great meal?

With regards to the wine and child example - adults of free will is different than a child. But I don't disagree with your point about imposing customs and rituals on others. That author however, was insistent on making a point to the contradiction of his/her host's beliefs.

Your point followed to its conclusion then is that the guest trumps the host. What if the guest wants to sit where the host normally sits at the dinner table? What if the guest insists on no children at the dinner table? What if the guest insists on the host NOT praying at the dinner table? Isn't that making the guest comfortable? That is not acceptable.

The point we should all agree upon is that there is a difference between asking someone to wear a yarmulke (the hat)and making that person pray. There is a difference between making that person pray and making that person convert. Your rule of never imposing a ritual on someone is taking it too far.

Again - this goes back to the insistence of that author to make a point to a harmless request of a homeowner for the guest/friend (or former friend) to observe something in common with the family. Refusing to do so reflects a hardened mind that displaced his/her anger against religion at the expense of friends.

Your point of advertising in advance is unfortunately necessary however, because of absolutes on both ends. People are too strident (religious and Atheist) on both ends of the spectrum, thus necessitating your point of notifying folks ahead of time. Sad, but true.

I am going to have to go ahead and agree that the author here was simply being rude. I was under the impression that the choice to not believe in any religion frees one from having to worry about taking part in another religion's pratcice without worrying about contravening ones own beliefs.

Atheism is NOT a system of belief. It is a lack thereof.

Ergo, any religious practice is simply meaningless to an atheist. If one engages in a religious practice simply out of respect for someone else's beliefs, what is hurt? Is an athiest afraid of betraying their own non-belief system by being polite and making a gesture that, while meaningless for them, has great meaning for their host? If not, what purpose is served in causing such a scene other than to try to make a point at a wholly inappropriate time?

Religious people often make themselves socially insuferable becuase of the demands for their belief systems. What's the atheists' excuse?

Shochu John Post: Atheism is NOT a system of belief. It is a lack thereof.

Response: To lack a belief means that there are beliefs that you choose not to accept. If you take your statement to the fullest extent one would have to conclude that you don't believe anything and are not equipped to do so. But your very post proves the contrary. You believe the words you use convey a message or you wouldn't use them. You probably also believe that eating is necessary to sustain life. In fact we all live by a system by which we "believe" to be true. If you truly lacked belief you would realize that posting your very own beliefs....er...uh..I mean thoughts would be futile. Wise up and be honest to yourself.

The host was rude in that he should have forewarned his guest of what would be expected at dinner, especially since he knew his guest did not share his beliefs.

The guest was in an uncomfortable position. If he wore a religious symbol that signalled a certain sincere belief and devotion but did so without such belief and devotion, is that not disrespectful to all of those who follow that particular religion? If someone wore a monk's habit to a whorehouse and proceeded to shag everything that moved, is that not offensive to all those who share the beliefs of those who wear such robes?

If the host had demanded that the guest join in the sacrificing of a virgin, should the guest agree and take part so as not to cause offence? Or should the guest adhere to his sense of right and wrong and politely decline, explaining his reasons? A Muslim guest would not non-Halal meat served by an atheist host.

In the circumstances, the author acted entirely properly and I like to think I would have the guts to do likewise, were I put in that situation.

I can just see it in the future for dinner invitations.

We are having a get together....Please RSVP and sign and fax the following diclaimer releasing us from any discomfort put on you by our beliefs....gag gifts only. See you next Saturday!!!

Matt, The atheist is not imposing anything overt on his guests. The religious if they come and insist on prayers are indeed engaging in an overt act. The analog would be if the atheist came to the religious person's home and insisted on a reading a declaration, in a ritualistic way, that science and reason trumped their religious superstition, and that they should get with the program. He could have them where dunce caps, emblematic of their current ignorant state.

In addressing Mr. Holcomb, I was focusing simply on etiquette.

By no means should a host put up with rude behaviour from a guest. If a host encounters rude behaviour, for example a guest sets a drink on a Vietnamese family alter, they should first determine if it is intentional or unintentional. Imagine the embarrassment to all parties if the host were to immediately assume that it was intentional and berated their guest. Often people are unintentionally rude. If the host were to instead ask their guest to "please remove their drink from the family alter", most likely the guest would blush, remove their drink and apologize profusely.

Regarding a guest partaking in the host's religious customs and rituals, that decision rests with the guest. They can politely decline to join in and respectfully sit silently as everyone partakes in their religious ritual. If this were a Christian home that prayed before the meal, a gracious host might offer their guest (who let's say is Hindu) a chance to offer their own blessings after prayer. Or the host may not, but they should not INSIST that their guests to partake in a religious custom they do not believe in or worship themselves.

As to whether a devout guest should pray before the meal when eating at an atheist's home, I will use my father as an example. He was very active in the community and often invited to the homes of people who did not share his religious beliefs. If his host did not offer for him to say grace (everyone who knew him knew he was devout) he would bow his head and silently say grace. If the host offered him to say grace, he would give a brief thanks for the hospitality of his hosts, the food that smells wonderful and the company of friends. He knew that it wasn't the time and place for a fervent prayer. And he was pretty sure God understood.

As to stating any requirements and obligations when a invitation is made, that is a matter of etiquette. If you extend an invitation to dinner without informing them that something is expected from them then do not be surprised if the atmosphere at dinner is uncomfortable. I'm sure we would all agree that you don't invite someone over to your home and not inform them they need to bring a gift because it is someone's birthady. Or perhaps it's a swinger's key party, surely the invitee should be informed of this. If it is an event were the guests are required to participate, the host needs to inform the invitees of this stipulation.

This is etiquette, Mr. Holcomb, not a response to the rigidity of people's beliefs. Everyone has the right to decline an invitation that requires and obligates them to participate in something in which they do not personally believe in.

Dunce caps... ha ha! Awesome, Norm. Valid point as any in this thread.

If immature and insulting equates to validity than I suppose people wearing dunce caps could be construde as some sort of actual point. But then again perhaps it's simply rude.

When I read this post, I immediately thought of this is a question of etiquette not religion. I realized I did not truely know the proper action for the situation. Thank you Miss Manners for clearing that up.

DFD, your very existence is rude to the saneness of humanity. I've construed you as "a stupid person; a dolt," as American Heritage would have it (or... dunce). It's grueling for the reasonable person to have to be PC to people like you simply because you're everywhere. Opinions like Bill Maher's on religion are too scarce. Was it "mature" to believe the Earth was flat, back in the day? Trying to please everyone doesn't bring about change, it only bolsters the status quo. I don't give a shit if you feel offended by the fact that I can't (and won't) humor your imaginary friend.

You suffer from a neurological disorder, as does an enormous percentage of the population. If religious differences don't bring about the end of the world (via nuclear holocaust) -- then hopefully one day you'll recognize that the Earth is, in fact, a round planet.

You've got the meme. And I still chuckle at the idea of passing you a dunce cap before dinner.

an a person be moral and not religious??

can a person be religious and not moral?

Cure4pain, I think you are using semantic ambiguity to extrapolate a simple point into a universal nihilism. When I say this "Atheism is NOT a system of belief. It is a lack thereof," I thought it was understood that I meant religious belief. It was not a greater epistemelogical statement. The point here, being, is that if one does not believe in a deity, one cannot attach any signifcance to any ritual in honor of that deity. The rest of my argument flows from there. -SJ

Following the refusal of the hat:

Were things to go fine between the Atheist and the Jewish family, one might wonder if the family would place a hat upon a nearby table on the next dinner engagement with the Athiest.

But I can imagine a scenario that might not go so well: Should the Athiest like or not like the food and ask how it was made or what was being served, the host might reply, "If you can wear the hat, you can stomach recipe."

The Atheist could get annoyed, but then, why? He should know that the story could start with buried pots or the earliest jewish traditions. But by putting the hat on, he can cut to the chase of what he's eating.

The altercation could go on for a long time.

One might almost say, it's in the offense that people take that we learn about each other. And how far do we go before accepting peace? I like to think I'd put on the hat and be thankful of the occasion. And further, I should enjoy learning how these people live. I would also share with them my atheistic views.

But were I to go to a church for a funeral service of a Catholic friend, should I take communion if I'm an Athiest? I really did't know the answer but was told that I shouldn't have done it... :) Maybe one should ask if it is appropriate for an Athiest to put on a hat at dinner or ask a question before observing any strange tradition at dinner or anywhere. Besides, the Athiest might learn something, like the hat was not required for reasons of faith, just appreciation for tradition.

Enjoyed the posts--i'm going to skip the pdf.

ShoChu John, Ok, thanks for the clarification. But I guess I was saying that being athiest does not mean you are exluded from a system of beliefs. You just don't call it a religion. Eventhough by definition you are religious about your lack of beliefs.

Yes, a person can be moral and not religious. The assumption that morality is exclusive to religion is a farce in order to make it preferable to have people of faith in powerful positions. Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Baker. Very religious, morally dubious.

Anon-X Feel free to chuckle all you want. Your flame merely exposes your disdain for human beings who happen to disagree with you. I will take your assumption that all Christians believe the world is flat (i.e. christians are a homogenous gathering of fundamentalists and are scientifically illiterate) as further proof of your intellectual and social isolation . I think you fail to realize the diversity that can be found among the worlds religions not to mention in Christianity alone. I have nothing against atheism. My relationship with God is my own business just as your disbelief in God is yours. Unlike you however, I don't need to inflate my own sense of certainty and self worth by demeaning the people of this world who happen to see it differently from me. I don't need to insult your cherished customs (equating yarmulkes to tinfoil hats and dunce caps) or to call you ignorant or mentally deficient. I will call you human however. By that I mean you are biased, prone to errors in judgment, emotional, and flawed. I hope that you find a little empathy in your heart because there are 6 billion people in this world and if you want them to see the world as YOU do then you first need to see the world as THEY do. Do you honestly want to take up that challenge? All I see at this point is someone who likes to make smug and derisive comments as people try to explain their personal feelings and faith. I was naive enough to think that certitude and judgement were the sole province of the Radical Right. You have taught me otherwise.

Thank you, DistasteForDissent

Distaste, "I don't need to insult your cherished customs (equating yarmulkes to tinfoil hats and dunce caps)" The least you can do is get the argument right. The point was that asking someone who considers belief in god superstitious hogwash, unsupported by any evidence, to where a yarmulke, a hat that is worn to show respect for said imginary god. A hat that is worn when speaking of that imaginary god is comprable to asking a jew to wear a dunce cap or tinfoil hat a request that I assume they would find extremely offensive. For a person that claims to harbor a distaste for dissent you keep the fires burning brightly. If you don't want your cherished customs insulted simply don't try to impose those customs on others. Getting back to the original question Simon Blackburn's host asked him to wear a yarmulke a request he found uncomfortable. Is your view still that it was rude to not go along. If I requested that you wear a tinfoil hat when having dinner at my house would it be rude of you not to go along, or would you like Mr. Blackburn decline. The example is really not that farfetched there are many people who feel just as strongly about the existence of aliens as others feel about their gods. I found both beliefs equally without merit.

The intent of my psuedonym is one of verbal irony. Unfortunately, people seem to take it at face value and project the perception that I am closed minded onto my statements. Am I wholly objective and unemotional? Of course not, but I do attempt to convey respect and sensitivity towards the inherently subjective views of others. I will fail at times in this endevour but I do try. In regards to the use of the yarmaluke, not being an observant Jew myself I can only speculate that it would be inappropriate to offer this item of piety to a nonbeliever to begin with. False or empty gesture tends to be looked down upon by many of faith. I would assume that most would prefer that no gesture be made on the part of the athiest rather then an ingenuine one. If the host uses this approach then the question is moot. If its use were insisted on by the host then it would be the place of the guest to appologize for the refusal to participate but that it's use would violate said guest's beliefs. Several things could be done at this point to resolve the issue and I see no reason it could not be handled with civility and dignity by both parties. If these two adults can't diffuse the situation in a way that would leave both sastisfied then they should not have sat down to a meal together in the first place.

"If you don't want your cherished customs insulted simply don't try to impose those customs on others." It is the unfortunate nature of democracy and of government itself that certain views are imposed on others. I attempt to impose mine by no other method than the ballot box. I seriously I doubt I have subjugated any minds through the power of my posts. Please don't fail to recognize the fact that I am far more likely to vote for leftist policies than Pat Robertson. Stereotypes are bad policy.

Nice show, DFD. In your mind, to conclude that religion is nonsense apparently equates to intellectual isolation. Well, I've got a smirk on my face and I'm shaking my head, alright. I'll tell Dawkins that he ought to get out more, I guess...

The majority of Christians must be scientifically illiterate if half the population interprets the bible literally and denies the fact of evolution. Otherwise, you're cherry-picking -- and my two words for that are "contradiction" and "denial."

That said -- if you think most Americans are even that open-minded -- the hermit is you, mate.

What's your argument again? That, since most people just "think" something, that somehow validates it? OK, DFD. Closer to what's really happening: most people use religion as a drug to avoid reality. It's a romantic view. I'll bet I'd want blinders on too if I were in such bliss -- I wasn't happy to find that Santa was made up. But I'm glad someone told me. You were close, but I'll clarify for you: I've got disdain for those who disagree with reality.

But it's not even that simple. If all you did was follow the teachings of Christ, I'd have no beef -- I'd think you were delusional for believing he was the "son of god," but I wouldn't resent you. Jesus' teachings alone are wonderful. Unfortunately, history speaks louder than you. The fantasy you and so many others take part in has been the cause for more violence than you're probably aware of. You're part of something that sounds nice in theory, but has been a death machine since its inception. Religion has been the catalyst for more human blood than anything else, period. That is where the bulk of motivation to stop you comes from for people like me.

When a society believes in a fiction, they use it to justify other actions. After a short Google query, I found just a couple examples:

A pig caused hundreds of Indians to kill one another in 1980. The animal walked through a Muslim holy ground at Moradabad, near New Delhi. Muslims, who think pigs are an embodiment of Satan, blamed Hindus for the defilement. They went on a murder rampage, stabbing and clubbing Hindus, who retaliated in kind. The pig riot spread to a dozen cities and left more than 200 dead.

This swinish episode tells a universal tale. It typifies religious behavior that has been recurring for centuries.

Ronald Reagan often called religion the world's mightiest force for good, "the bedrock of moral order." George Bush said it gives people "the character they need to get through life." This view is held by millions. But the truism isn't true. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can a society hope to become humane.

The history of religion is a horror story. If anyone doubts it, just review this chronicle of religion's gore during the last 1,000 years or so:

-- The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry "Deus Vult" (God wills it), a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land. Gathering crusaders in Germany first fell upon "the infidel among us," Jews in the Rhine valley, thousands of whom were dragged from their homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive. Then the religious legions plundered their way 2,000 miles to Jerusalem, where they killed virtually every inhabitant, "purifying" the symbolic city. Cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode in blood up to the knees and even to the horses' bridles, by the just and marvelous judgment of God."

-- Human sacrifice blossomed in the Mayan theocracy of Central America between the 11th and 16th centuries. To appease a feathered-serpent god, maidens were drowned in sacred wells and other victims either had their hearts cut out, were shot with arrows, or were beheaded. Elsewhere, sacrifice was sporadic. In Peru, pre-Inca tribes killed children in temples called "houses of the moon." In Tibet, Bon shamans performed ritual killings. In Borneo builders of pile houses drove the first pile through the body of a maiden to pacify the earth goddess. In India, Dravidian people offered lives to village goddesses, and followers of Kali sacrificed a male child every Friday evening.

-- In the Third Crusade, after Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre in 1191, he ordered 3,000 captives -- many of them women and children -- taken outside the city and slaughtered. Some were disemboweled in a search for swallowed gems. Bishops intoned blessings. Infidel lives were of no consequence. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."

-- The Assassins were a sect of Ismaili Shi'ite Muslims whose faith required the stealthy murder of religious opponents. From the 11th to 13th centuries, they killed numerous leaders in modern-day Iran, Iraq and Syria. They finally were wiped out by conquering Mongols -- but their vile name survives.

-- Throughout Europe, beginning in the 1100s, tales spread that Jews were abducting Christian children, sacrificing them, and using their blood in rituals. Hundreds of massacres stemmed from this "blood libel." Some of the supposed sacrifice victims -- Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, the holy child of LaGuardia, Simon of Trent -- were beatified or commemorated with shrines that became sites of pilgrimages and miracles.

-- In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He commanded: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Nearly 20,000 were slaughtered -- many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.

-- The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation: that the host wafer miraculously turns into the body of Jesus during the mass. Soon rumors spread that Jews were stealing the sacred wafers and stabbing or driving nails through them to crucify Jesus again. Reports said that the pierced host bled, cried out, or emitted spirits. On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake in 1243 in Belitz, Germany -- the first of many killings that continued into the 1800s. To avenge the tortured host, the German knight Rindfliesch led a brigade in 1298 that exterminated 146 defenseless Jewish communities in six months.

-- In the 1200s the Incas built their empire in Peru, a society dominated by priests reading daily magical signs and offering sacrifices to appease many gods. At major ceremonies up to 200 children were burned as offerings. Special "chosen women" -- comely virgins without blemish -- were strangled.

-- Also during the 1200s, the hunt for Albigensian heretics led to establishment of the Inquisition, which spread over Europe. Pope Innocent IV authorized torture. Under interrogation by Dominican priests, screaming victims were stretched, burned, pierced and broken on fiendish pain machines to make them confess to disbelief and to identify fellow transgressors. Inquisitor Robert le Bourge sent 183 people to the stake in a single week.

-- In Spain, where many Jews and Moors had converted to escape persecution, inquisitors sought those harboring their old faith. At least 2,000 Spanish backsliders were burned. Executions in other countries included the burning of scientists such as mathematician-philosopher Giordano Bruno, who espoused Copernicus's theory that the planets orbit the sun.

-- When the Black Death swept Europe in 1348-1349, rumors alleged that it was caused by Jews poisoning wells. Hysterical mobs slaughtered thousands of Jews in several countries. In Speyer, Germany, the burned bodies were piled into giant wine casks and sent floating down the Rhine. In northern Germany Jews were walled up alive in their homes to suffocate or starve. The Flagellants, an army of penitents who whipped themselves bloody, stormed the Jewish quarter of Frankfurt in a gruesome massacre. The prince of Thuringia announced that he had burned his Jews for the honor of God.

-- The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s and brought human sacrifice to a golden era. About 20,000 people were killed yearly to appease gods -- especially the sun god, who needed daily "nourishment" of blood. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned, beheaded, burned or dropped from heights. In a rite to the rain god, shrieking children were killed at several sites so that their tears might induce rain. In a rite to the maize goddess, a virgin danced for 24 hours, then was killed and skinned; her skin was worn by a priest in further dancing. One account says that at King Ahuitzotl's coronation, 80,000 prisoners were butchered to please the gods.

-- In the 1400s, the Inquisition shifted its focus to witchcraft. Priests tortured untold thousands of women into confessing that they were witches who flew through the sky and engaged in sex with the devil -- then they were burned or hanged for their confessions. Witch hysteria raged for three centuries in a dozen nations. Estimates of the number executed vary from 100,000 to 2 million. Whole villages were exterminated. In the first half of the 17th century, about 5,000 "witches" were put to death in the French province of Alsace, and 900 were burned in the Bavarian city of Bamberg. The witch craze was religious madness at its worst.

-- The "Protestant Inquisition" is a term applied to the severities of John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the 1500s. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics," including theologian Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity. Elizabeth I outlawed Catholicism and executed about 200 Catholics.

-- Protestant Huguenots grew into an aggressive minority in France in the 15OOs -- until repeated Catholic reprisals smashed them. On Saint Bartholomew's Day in 1572, Catherine de Medicis secretly authorized Catholic dukes to send their soldiers into Huguenot neighborhoods and slaughter families. This massacre touched off a six-week bloodbath in which Catholics murdered about 10,000 Huguenots. Other persecutions continued for two centuries, until the French Revolution. One group of Huguenots escaped to Florida; in 1565 a Spanish brigade discovered their colony, denounced their heresy, and killed them all.

-- Members of lndia's Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the 1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2 million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali.

-- The Anabaptists, communal "rebaptizers," were slaughtered by both Catholic and Protestant authorities. In Munster, Germany, Anabaptists took control of the city, drove out the clergymen, and proclaimed a New Zion. The bishop of Munster began an armed siege. While the townspeople starved, the Anabaptist leader proclaimed himself king and executed dissenters. When Munster finally fell, the chief Anabaptists were tortured to death with red-hot pincers and their bodies hung in iron cages from a church steeple.

-- Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general commanded Bible-carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, "God made them as stubble to our swords." He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests, calling it "a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches."

-- Ukrainian Bogdan Chmielnicki was a Cossack Cromwell. He wore the banner of Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish Catholics. More than 100,000 were killed in this 17th-century bloodbath, and the Ukraine was split away from Poland to become part of the Orthodox Russian empire.

-- The Thirty Years' War produced the largest religious death toll of all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious armies from Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France and Italy. Sweden's Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther's "Ein 'Feste Burg" in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery. One estimate states that Germany's population dropped from 18 million to 4 million. In the end nothing was settled, and too few people remained to rebuild cities, plant fields, or conduct education.

-- When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.

-- In 1723 the bishop of Gdansk, Poland, demanded that all Jews be expelled from the city. The town council declined, but the bishop's exhortations roused a mob that invaded the ghetto and beat the residents to death.

-- Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all "sinners" and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, 'Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes -- with massacres, beheadings and a mass execution of 300 hostages. In the 1880s a third Sudanese holy man, Muhammad Ahmed, commanded a jihad that destroyed a 10,000-man Egyptian army and wiped out defenders of Khartoum led by British general Charles "Chinese" Gordon.

-- In 1801 Orthodox priests in Bucharest, Romania, revived the story that Jews sacrificed Christians and drank their blood. Enraged parishioners stormed the ghetto and cut the throats of 128 Jews.

-- When the Baha'i faith began in Persia in 1844, the Islamic regime sought to exterminate it. The Baha'i founder was imprisoned and executed in 1850. Two years later, the religious government massacred 20,000 Baha'is. Streets of Tehran were soaked with blood. The new Baha'i leader, Baha'ullah, was tortured and exiled in foreign Muslim prisons for the rest of his life.

-- Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the 1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 "spotless" men were buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city. When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried at once, or the capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies.

-- In 1857 both Muslim and Hindu taboos triggered the Sepoy Mutiny in India. British rulers had given their native soldiers new paper cartridges that had to be bitten open. The cartridges were greased with animal tallow. This enraged Muslims, to whom pigs are unclean, and Hindus, to whom cows are sacred. Troops of both faiths went into a crazed mutiny, killing Europeans wantonly. At Kanpur, hundreds of European women and children were massacred after being promised safe passage.

-- Late in the 19th century, with rebellion stirring in Russia, the czars attempted to divert public attention by helping anti-Semitic groups rouse Orthodox Christian hatred for Jews. Three waves of pogroms ensued -- in the 1880s, from 1903 to 1906, and during the Russian Revolution. Each wave was increasingly murderous. During the final period, 530 communities were attacked and 60,000 Jews were killed.

-- In the early 1900s, Muslim Turks waged genocide against Christian Armenians, and Christian Greeks and Balkans warred against the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

-- When India finally won independence from Britain in 1947, the "great soul" of Mahatma Gandhi wasn't able to prevent Hindus and Muslims from turning on one another in a killing frenzy that took perhaps 1 million lives. Even Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who thought him too pro-Muslim.

-- In the 1950s and 1960s, combat between Christians, animists and Muslims in Sudan killed more than 500,000.

-- In Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978, followers of the Rev. Jim Jones killed a visiting congressman and three newsmen, then administered cyanide to themselves and their children in a 900-person suicide that shocked the world.

-- Islamic religious law decrees that thieves shall have their hands or feet chopped off, and unmarried lovers shall be killed. In the Sudan in 1983 and 1984, 66 thieves were axed in public. A moderate Muslim leader, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, was hanged for heresy in 1985 because he opposed these amputations. In Saudi Arabia a teen-age princess and her lover were executed in public in 1977. In Pakistan in 1987, a 25-year-old carpenter's daughter was sentenced to be stoned to death for engaging in unmarried sex. In the United Arab Emirates in 1984, a cook and a maid were sentenced to stoning for adultery -- but, as a show of mercy, the execution was postponed until after the maid's baby was born.

-- In 1983 in Darkley, Northern Ireland, Catholic terrorists with automatic weapons burst into a Protestant church on a Sunday morning and opened fire, killing three worshipers and wounding seven. It was just one of hundreds of Catholic-Protestant ambushes that have taken 2,600 lives in Ulster since age-old religious hostility turned violent again in 1969.

-- Hindu-Muslim bloodshed erupts randomly throughout India. More than 3,000 were killed in Assam province in 1983. In May 1984 Muslims hung dirty sandals on a Hindu leader's portrait as a religious insult. This act triggered a week of arson riots that left 216 dead, 756 wounded, 13,000 homeless, and 4,100 in jail.

-- Religious tribalism -- segregation of sects into hostile camps -- has ravaged Lebanon continuously since 1975. News reports of the civil war tell of "Maronite Christian snipers," "Sunni Muslim suicide bombers," "Druze machine gunners," "Shi'ite Muslim mortar fire," and "Alawite Muslim shootings." Today 130,000 people are dead and a once-lovely nation is laid waste.

-- In Nigeria in 1982, religious fanatic followers of Mallam Marwa killed and mutilated several hundred people as heretics and infidels. They drank the blood of some of the victims. When the militia arrived to quell the violence, the cultists sprinkled themselves with blessed powder that they thought would make them impervious to police bullets. It didn't.

-- Today's Shi'ite theocracy in Iran -- "the government of God on earth" -- decreed that Baha'i believers who won't convert shall be killed. About 200 stubborn Baha'is were executed in the early 1980s, including women and teenagers. Up to 40,000 Baha'is fled the country. Sex taboos in Iran are so severe that: (1) any woman who shows a lock of hair is jailed; (2) Western magazines being shipped into the country first go to censors who laboriously black out all women's photos except for faces; (3) women aren't allowed to ski with men, but have a separate slope where they may ski in shrouds.

-- The lovely island nation of Sri Lanka has been turned hellish by ambushes and massacres between Buddhist Sinhalese and Hindu Tamils.

-- In 1983 a revered Muslim leader, Mufti Sheikh Sa'ad e-Din el'Alami of Jerusalem, issued a fatwa (an order of divine deliverance) promising an eternal place in paradise to any Muslim assassin who would kill President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria.

-- Sikhs want to create a separate theocracy, Khalistan (Land of the Pure), in the Punjab region of India. Many heed the late extremist preacher Jarnail Bhindranwale, who taught his followers that they have a "religious duty to send opponents to hell." Throughout the 1980s they sporadically murdered Hindus to accomplish this goal. In 1984, after Sikh guards riddled prime minister Indira Gandhi with 50 bullets, Hindus went on a rampage that killed 5,000 Sikhs in three days. Mobs dragged Sikhs from homes, stores, buses and trains, chopping and pounding them to death. Some were burned alive; boys were castrated.

-- In 1984 Shi'ite fanatics who killed and tortured Americans on a hijacked Kuwaiti airliner at Tehran Airport said they did it "for the pleasure of God."??Obviously, people who think religion is a force for good are looking only at Dr. Jekyll and ignoring Mr. Hyde. They don't see the superstitious savagery pervading both history and current events.

It's fashionable among thinking people to say that religion isn't the real cause of today's strife in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, India and Iran -- that sects merely provide labels for combatants. Not so. Religion keeps the groups in hostile camps. Without it, divisions would blur with passing generations; children would adapt to new times, mingle, intermarry, forget ancient wounds. But religion keeps them alien to one another.

Anything that divides people breeds inhumanity. Religion serves that ugly purpose.

Cue DFD: "I'm not part of the extremists!"

You do nothing but aid and perpetuate them, though. Religion is unnecessary. It also happens to be nonsensical, a halter of progression, and a reason for violence. That is why I have disdain for you -- you willingly support this bloody fairy tale. Trust me, Jesus would not be proud of his "followers" today. When will everyone wake up?

"That is why I have disdain for you -- you willingly support this bloody fairy tale." but yet you also say "Jesus' teachings alone are wonderful." I'm confused, are you condemning religion for what it is or are you condemning humanity for failing to live up to it's promise? Also, in regards to history, taking only the evidence that supports your argument is disingenous. Provide evidence of the good that religion has performed, "Otherwise, you're cherry-picking -- and my two words for that are "contradiction" and "denial."" Let's forget that religion has produced soup kitchens, homeless shelters, world food relief, hospitals, preserved much of Western thought through the Dark Ages and much more. Let's also ignore the fact that atheistic communism has killed millions upon millions of people. I suppose that makes all individual communists not only ignorant little red book fanatics but also complicit in the slaughter of previous generations. This also includes their socialist friends. Theres no difference between pink and red. Lets forget all the reasons that people have been murdered or why wars have been fought over such things as food, land, power,and even oil. How convenient and ironic that your method of single evidence argument and stereotyping not only dehumanizes individuals but also resembles fundamentlist theologies. You're right, I'm not an extremist. I can discern the difference between history, the present, personal belief, and collective blame.

You may also want to give credit (i.e. cite) whomever you 'borrowed' that lengthy tract from.

So what have you said here? Atheism and Communism kills more people than religion? You're a fool. Where's your evidence, DFD? I call bullshit. Soup kitchens? How about the healthcare systems in Sweden, one of the least religious countries in the world, for one example? Rest of Scandinavia? Canada? The US absolutely pales in comparison. I assure you religion has not made up for the blood it's caused. In sheer numbers, MANY MANY MANY more have died in the name of some God. You're an ignorant if you belive otherwise!

And yes DFD, I said Jesus's teachings alone. The literal words themselves are very agreeable -- probably a reason why he was held in such regard then, and propped up as the Lord. I condemn people (like you) for not holding these things up (hypocrites) -- I just also happen to find it absurd that they think he's God, instead of just a smart, good man (delusional). It's not either/or as you posed it.

"Lets forget all the reasons that people have been murdered or why wars have been fought over such things as food, land, power,and even oil."

Oh yes, wars have never had anything to do with religion. I have no comment for such a stupid statement. Take a history class. And don't forget our dear leader today was informed by God to invade Iraq -- the oil is just a bonus.

(You want the source? This will be the second time you've attempted to make me look foolish by "calling me" on something... but ended up the fool yourself.)

Here's the source.

Here's another speech by the same guy that you might be interested in.

I wanted to add...

Believing in chapter 3 of the bible, but not chapter 5, is a contradiction.

1 person getting served soup in a shelter at the same time 100 people are getting slaughtered in Sudan is a reality.

Learn the difference before you try your snide, half-witted post again.

My statement,"Lets forget all the reasons that people have been murdered or why wars have been fought over such things as food, land, power,and even oil." Your retort "Oh yes, wars have never had anything to do with religion.I have no comment for such a stupid statement." One, I never asserted that religion has not been the cause of violence or strife. Two, I made no assertion regarding the 'body count' to see who won Religion or Atheism, That wasn't the point. I don't deny that religion can be a cause of contention, therefore you have little need to put words in my mouth. (people can read my posts as easily as yours) I'm assuming then that you blame religion for every conflict that has had a 'significant' number of casualties? I'm mean if you really want to look back into world history you will find that Roman conquests were rarely 'justified' by religion. They looked to omens with guarded skepticism at best. The patrician class, the elites, used conquest and war as a way to make themselves rich, popular, and powerful. It had absolutely no consequence to them whether they conquered the gods of Gaul or of Judea. It was about greed and economic growth. Could they then use religious propaganda to justify the bloodshed? Sure, but it wasn't necessary. It also doesn't follow that you can lay the death, violence, and destruction that has occured throughout the ages at the feet of Christians while through the otherside of your mouth you praise the philosophy of Jesus (oh, wasn't it nonviolent or something like that?). Whether divine or not, it's a contradictory in its assumptions. (Christ = Good, Christians = Evil) I suggest you look up the death tolls for these non-religious regimes and their programs; Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Stalin's Purge, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Hitler (and don't try to frame the Holocaust as a religious war). Also, be keen to understand the difference between what is espoused to be the rationale for a war and what the true motivation is. Sure you could make the claim that, "Bush said God spoke to him". But really, is that why we're at war? I really doubt you'll find many people that will cite that as the sole factor in his decision much less the pivotal one. What about, revenge, greed, arrongance, stupidity. I know it's tempting to take the easy way out and blame God but really, give George a little credit. After all, look at the people around him? Of course not, they're self serving, ambitious, and completely devoid of ethical constraints, just like Bush. Do you really think they're pious? You also persist with the irony. As a non-religous, non-Christian you lack any real standing to determine whether someone is a 'good' Christian or not so give it a rest.

P.S. If my remarks are in anyway snide I suppose you ought to toughen up that little ego of yours because "It's grueling for the reasonable person to have to be PC to people like you simply because you're everywhere." I don't need a tinfoil hat or dunce cap to look right through you so don't try that half-witted crap too. Arrogance doesn't translate into actual intelligence it just demeans every word that comes out of your mouth.

All the respect is gone, there is nothing left but religion, comments on this topic are closed.