Peter likes the "End of Faith", by Sam Harris, I know, but Harris too makes a distinction:
"While my argument in this book is aimed at faith itself, the differences between faiths are as relevant as they are unmistakable. There is reason, after all, why we must now confront Muslim, rather than Jain terrorists, in every corner of the world. Jains do not believe anything that is remotely likely to inspire them to commit actis of suicidal violence against unbelievers. By any measure... there are good beliefs and there are bad ones -- and it should now be obvious to everyone that Muslims have more than their fair share of the latter....
We are at war with Islam...."
-- Harris, Sam. The End of Faith, W.W. Norton, 2004, p108-109
Criticism of religion can be a risky business |
| I refer to the letter by Chris Wilson ("The dark side of organised religion", January 3). There are three main large-scale drivers of man's inhumanity to man - nationalism, social engineering and religion. Religion is possibly the single greatest cause of human slaughter and tragedy throughout history and religious belief also plays a role in the death and destruction arising from the other two instigators. So many millions have died in religious conflict and yet all religions claim to be peaceful and ask for, and demand, respect. Respect for what? If one person ran around shouting the illogical, irrational, unfounded and empirically unproven beliefs held by the religious faithful he would be forced to seek psychiatric help. When a mass of people hold the same beliefs we are not allowed to criticise, and must treat these beliefs with dignity. Why should I be free to criticise anyone's beliefs and opinions about history, politics, physics and literature in the rational world, but not feel free to utter any criticism of their religious faith? When it comes to religious dogma, true freedom of expression is sidelined by common societal consent. Indeed, expressing my views on religion can get me killed. Peter Sherwood, Discovery Bay |
