Besides the newsworthiness of the truth, there are at least three reasons why it is desirable that politicians and journalists begin to admit the relationship between religion and the terrorist acts it inspires:
The problem is not taking a belief to an extreme, but the fact that said belief is extremist in itself — a football referee or a poker player can be very purist with the rules, a ‘extremist’ if you like, and he will never kill anyone because that is simply not in his book.
“When people pray before meals and you sit there wondering what you should do?”
I start eating. I don’t respect religious beliefs.
The interpretation of a text occurs when it is unclear in its literalness, so it is necessary to go to the context or the principles assisting it as motivation. Are they going to argue that god dictated its magnum opus in such a way it would lose consistency over time, or with metaphors that would cause confusion depending on who interpreted them?
farfetched to claim that people who keep denying the relationship between religion and terrorism have blood on their hands?
An interesting way to remove the superstitious enforcement in the last moments of life. How would you want your obituary to replace the religious symbol?
Maybe Weinberg wasn’t as accurate as he could have been, but his statement remains true to a certain degree. Some times evil is done without invoking a god; but it is always done with the psychological set of tools that characterizes religion.
– What if you’re wrong and there is a god?
– Then he has a lot to answer for!
The argument that the rules can be skipped if you have an imaginary friend has won once again — thank you Waris Ahluwalia.
None of the people who’re on the bandwagon to smear Richard-Dawkins do it for click bait. They do it out of hate. Plain and simple, visceral, old fashioned hate.
I really wonder where did all of your critical thinking skills went, Novella, because you’re so wrong on so many levels, it’s just shameful.
Thought crimes are coming back and NECSS wants to make sure you know it. If you can’t disagree with the host, is it even worth speaking at such a venue?
The Pope’s spokesman denied any duty to answer about this — they’re too busy dealing with *actual* moral problems, such as gay marriage and Charlie Hebdo’s drawings.
Contrary to what vegans claim (or want us to conclude), going veg is bad for animals, our health and the environment.
Let’s recall the words of Pope Francis exactly a year ago, when he *advocated* violence in the name of god just after the terrorist attack at Charlie Hebdo:
Do you wonder how would it be if everyone with a YouTube account uploaded their own copy? Just to be sure everyone knows the bullying and intimidation tactics ISOC endorses when someone says something they dislike!
If, in order to avoid killings for any trifle, the book with instructions on how to treat each other requires longer comments than the very instructions, it isn’t a useful tool in the first place.
Ecuavisa was found responsible for broadcasting discriminatory content on the basis of age and religion and will have to apologize to Carolina Peña..
Judge María Fernanda Ríos was let go from the show for her Twitter vitriolic comments after bashing an atheist contestant.
All religion is political and tries to impose itself on the rest of society, so there’s no actual difference between “Islamism” and “Islam”. It’s just politically correct crap.