We are still paying for the crusades. And weren't 9/11 and the Iraq war a couple of faith-based initiatives?

In order for us to change the official national behavior of the USA for the better, we need American Catholics and other American Christians to switch their votes from the neo-conservative (Republican) side to align with liberals.
It's hard for me to see how this article helps us attract those voters and make that progress.

Carolyn Bennett, you are absolutely right.

These dissenters from your post throw numbers of slaughtered around as if they know what they are talking about.

It is always well to remember Voltaire's: "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocites."

So much for "religion."

Religion may not be behind every war that we have known -- but religion has certainly been behind untold millions killed, mutilated, displaced, or made miserably unhappy throughout history. And unfortunately religion is fueling the conflict that may soon end life on this planet. GW and his band of neo-con fundamental Christian-Zionist zealots are intent on bringing about the end of the world so that they can be raptured or else own all of what might be left of Palestine. Their brutal religious folly could kill billions, if not the entire human species and a bunch of other species as well. The planet will be lucky to have a few one-celled critters to start all over again if GW and Cheney and the Zionists have their way.

As Ron Paul said, "Fascism in Anerica is a flag draped around a cross".

We should be careful not to muddle 'secularism' and 'atheism' with 'communism' and 'Stalinism'. I believe a 'religious' Mao or Pol Pot or Stalin would have killed just as many people. And it's true, Truthtell, here in the endgame of evolution Religion has a chance to blow Atheism's death score right out of the water. Go fictional father figures!

Secularism hasn't had very much time to compete with the death toll produced by the world's religions. Religion has had centuries to cause the deaths of vast numbers of people, including (to name but a few) the Inquisition, the Crusades, suicide bombers, the Jihad of the month, and the war on contraception by today's Katholik church which continues to indirectly pile up the bodies across the globe. Nevermind that virtually every violent conflict that occurs today has some grounding in religious texts or commands from religious leaders. I have never heard anyone try to make the case that Power Slave has; it's patently absurd, even if one attributed the acts of the leaders P.S. mentioned to 'atheism'. Religion is the one constant in a neverending parade of death throughout the centuries. Whenever any group claims to possess an absolute truth, violence is just around the corner. Particularly when these 'truths' deal with such unknowable and unproveable ideas as the existence of a god/creator, the possibility of life after death, etc. All religions, except for the watered down unitarian types, are inherently divisive and doomed to repeat the cycles of violence that have persisted since the dawn of...well, religion. Only when we as a modern, reason-driven society, can reject any belief based on superstitious tradition rather than logic and pragmatism can we cease to legitimize the the bloodshed that inevitably occurs when Group A wishes to assert it's 'truth' over the 'false or misled truth' of Group B. God help us. And you should re-check your math, PowerSlave.

Ms. Bennett's analysis is apt. Religions are predatory. They encourage obedience and conformity. They foster divisions among people. They buttress the economic and political status quo. They provide ideological cover for predatory economic systems.

The spectacle of the Pope (and other religious "leaders") living and traveling in splendor and obscene wealth while billions of humans live in squalor and billions of more-than-human lives (all of them God's creatures) are destroyed by industrial society, is truly sickening. Jesus himself would have decried such a spectacle. Jesus himself would have confronted the Pope and denounced him as a hypocrite and a charlatan. Jesus was profoundly opposed to religion. His whole message was that we should reject dogma, reject the Pharisean church of law, and follow our hearts instead, follow LOVE. We all know what LOVE is. We don't need a priest or rabbi or imam to teach us the one divine law of LOVE.

Religion is anti-love, anti-life, anti-God. Religion is the veil that people draw down over their senses because LOVE is overwhelming, LIFE is overwhelming, GOD is overwhelming. Religion is designed to cover up GOD, cover up NATURE and LIFE. Religion is anti-spirit. It is spiritual crack designed to destroy our faith in ourselves and in our Creator.

A true spiritual path will always edify and dignify its followers. As Ms. Bennett aptly observes, religion has the opposite effect. It teaches its followers to consider themselves unworthy, lesser than their "leaders." It endorses the hierarchy of exploitation and rape. It puts a stamp of legitimacy on the grossly inequitable economic and political system that is killing us all and killing our Mother Earth.

One cannot blame the Pope single-handedly for all the misery in the world; the misery was around long before the Catholic Church came into being. As for continuing misery in the world; that will probably go on as we are all fighting in some way for limited resources. The world is no longer the empty vastiness it used to be; there are 6 billion plus people on this planet and our natural resources are shrinking.

With Catholics (I am one myself-although I refer to myself as a secular Catholic); the Pope is the leader of the flock and we all want and need some truth and guidance, even if that guidance is something we steer away from. As for kissing his ringed hand, that is a tradition of respect and done by both men and women of the faith.
It is well know by almost everyone, that women are good for religion; but not one religion on this planet has women in any real position of authority or power and none of the religions have much respect for women's POV, needs or opinions. Our lives mean very little to most clergy, irrespective of the sect.
I think we should try and straighten out the politics of civil society in which we all live before we restart blaming religion for our ills. The Boy's Club is alive and well and will definitely not go down without a fight.

I think Bennett has some threads of ideas here, but muddles them together. She's right, the refugee crises need to be noted again and again, since they are generally ignored by MSM. She's right, the spectacle of a modern government official kissing the pope's ring is obscene.

She's wrong, I think, that people are not predisposed to religion, or at least something like it. Humans are, as modern neuroscience shows, quite predisposed to habits of thought and mistakes of perception that promote the perpetuation and embellishment of memeplexes which share many similar carrots and sticks. That is where Power_Slave, with his/her assumptions about "secular ideologies", is on the right track, but leans to, perhaps, the wrong conclusions. In Power_Slave's comments, we come, once again, to meet the wrongheaded idea that fascist regimes which denounced theism and persecuted people for practicing religion did so BECAUSE of atheism. Actually, these were, and are, regimes soaked in irrationalism, in anti-science, as much as, and often moreso, than many modern religions.

Power_Slave attributes millions of deaths to "athiesm", by which I think he means atheism, and the spelling is not just a nitpick, it allows you to see what the word means. It is simply "not theism", just not god-belief. It is no more an ideology than bald is a hair color, (even though it may be a part of, or an outcome of, previous premises, such as scientific naturalism).

An official policy of atheism, such as some of those regimes Power_Slave refers to had, does not make gods any more or less likely. What it may do, and I think often did, is to replace one overarching nonsense-based memeplex with another, such as replacing belief in the god (and the religious package it was wrapped in) of one's local culture with belief in a particularly twisted kind of Communism, or of the Third Reich (a neo-pagan, anti-science, techno-loving, very religious mess), or of Maoist messianism.

To blame atheism for these horrors is as simplistic as to blame theism for the horrors of the Crusades. On the one hand, atheism is insufficient as a motivator, since it is simple absence of belief in gods (some few folks also actively believe there are no gods, which is logically less defensible). And theism has so many forms, since there are so many ways each person, and each official creed, may define the plethora of gods, as well as how some theisms are wedded to memeplexes of rules and habits; some versions can wrap up all the main motivators in a person's life (family, honor, safety, love, gain, fear, joy...) and present the person with a readymade package that seems to satisfy all of these. It is the package, the memeplex, that is so powerful, and that can lead to the horrors of the Crusades, or the horrors of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

BTW, one cannot enforce atheism any more than one can enforce belief in fairies. I can pretend to believe in Unicorns or Thor or the benevolence of the Dear Leader, and may do so strategically to keep my family safe, for example. I used to actually believe in the God of the Catholic Church. I also used to believe in Santa, and fairies. I had quite lovely personal experiences, as I perceived them, with all of those beings. Now I interpret those experiences differently, and still cherish them. I believe in none of those supernatural things, and pretending, or wishing, is not the same as belief. Losing the magic did not make me lose the wonder. I am, perhaps, not so made that I can believe in things with no evidence and precious little plausibility. I have great desire to learn more about the world, and to make it better. The evidence is strong that I have only this lifetime in this amazing but ultimately failing bodily vehicle. Thank God I'm an atheist.

Ken Mitchell reports:

As Ron Paul said, "Fascism in Anerica is a flag draped around a cross

******************

If Ron said that, he was quoting Sinclair Lewis from his 1935 book,"It Can't Happen Here".

*****************

The true power of religion (and here I am speaking of power in a positive, life-changing, life-affirming sort of way) derives from personal faith modeled by the believer to other persons and not in the coercive domination of heirarchy.

The Pope, being the essence of domiineering heirarchy, represents all that is wrong with "organized religion" and nothing of personal faith. A tell-tale sign of those who are enslaved to organized religion is the statement "my church teaches" or even more generally "I believe what my Church teaches" (the implication of which is "because my church teaches it).

For a fun Bible study, read through the four gospels in the New Testement and note for whom Jesus reserves his harshest condemnations. You will notice that it is both the leaders of religious heirarchies (Pharisees and
Sadducies) and the "opinion molders" of his day (scribes and lawyers). Not surprisingly they were the ones who hated him the most and plotted his demise.

Fantastic post, Skeptyk; thanks.

Skeptyk should be writing for Common Dreams. Carolyn Bennett has an audience here because Common Dreams is fast asleep at the switch.

I concur: Skeptyk thanks for a great informative post... "Thank God I'm an atheist" how ironic..

Religions are a form of brainwashing. They are distractions, a way to keep us distracted and down below others, not realizing our own worth. Most wars, and far more deaths have been caused, by religions.

Catholicism is misogynist, homophobic, paternal, and dangerous. This pope was once a NAZI YOUTH! Why the lovefest??

Thanks, Poet, for reminding us of that Sinclair Lewis book, "It Can't Happen Here", which my SO is, in fact, rereading right now. (And thanks, other guys, for the compliments.)

All believers in the One God wrestle with C. Bennett's statement, "If popes and priests and rabbis and imams had ever been seriously interested in ending global misery of the masses, ending war and violence, they would have done so long ago."
There have been few notable collaborations across religious lines. Tariq Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, a Christian, went to Rome in Feb., 2003, met Pope John Paul II, and the Pope later begged Bush to not start this war on Muslim Iraq.
American Muslim and boxing champ, Muhammed Ali, refused induction into US military service in March, 1967, "I got no quarrel with no Vietcong..." This bold stand had to have encouraged MLK in his April 4, 1967, public statement, "Beyond Vietnam," against the war. Both men paid a heavy cost for these public stands.
All believers should insist on more collaborations from our world's religions, but especially from those who believe in the One God who makes all one.

"Carolyn Bennett's sophomoric rant against religion tells the world a lot concerning the shallowness of her mind. The fact that she is published by CommonDreams tells a lot about the bigotry of this website."

Couldn't agree more about Bennett. Though sophomoric might be a compliment.

Can't agree with the last part however. There is no more bigotry on Common Dreams than anywhere else.

Though I think she is an idiot for her conclusions about religion, she would probably tell you I'm an idiot for believing in God. Both positions about religion are acceptable because both are based on nothing but faith.

Secondly, whats the point of having a place like Common Dreams if people can't exchange ideas and viewpoints in a civil manner. And yes, calling me an idiot isn't un-civil. My wife thinks its my name.

I know I've learned some things here and changed my mind in some areas because of something someone said....someone I might have disagreed with on 99% of what they said. But that 1% helped me grow.

If there is someone here that wants those that disagree with them to stop posting, then I'd say they were the ones that need to get lost. And I'm not speaking of you mcmackle.

Ideology and a closed mind are the death of intelligent thought.

Skeptyk April 19th, 2008 12:33 pm

Blast....I meant to add my compliments too. Great post!

And I'm happy you are an atheist, because thats what you want to be.

Skeptyk: Way Cool, That's Why I Read The Threads!

Killer Post-Thank You.

"Both positions (theism and atheism) about religion are acceptable because both are based on nothing but faith." - Thomas More

The absence of something is not that something: having faith is not the same as not having faith.

A lack of faith in the existence of god or gods is not solely based upon faith any more than not having faith in fairies and elves is only based upon faith.

If you're happy with your faith, so be it, but it's a mistake and a contradiction to assume that those without faith also have faith.

I believe Muhammed Ali's comment was: No Vietcong ever called me a nigger.

Hi, Thomas More. Thanks for the thoughts, although I think you have mistaken me for someone who has faith. If faith is belief without evidence, then that is not me. As I said, and as Dr Rick clarified, my atheism is NOT a belief that there is no god(s), and few atheists I know have that sort of faith. Rather I lack belief in god(s). The distinction is important to me, because I am striving, difficult as that may be in such as emotional, perceptually restricted shell as this primate thing I am, striving for intellectual honesty. I can no more prove the assertion "there is no god" than I can prove that a teapot orbits Jupiter (Russell's famous example). Such supernatural beings and Jovian dishware are not in evidence, and highly unlikely, but I am not ready to make bald assertions pro or con their existence. I am agnostic and atheist: "I don't know if there be gods, and therefore I don't believe in gods."

So, I do not have faith. I hold provisional assumptions based upon present evidence, open to change when and if new evidence comes along.

BTW, Thomas More, have you seen how the Showtime drama serial, The Tudors, is portraying your namesake? They aren't giving him the elegant Robert Bolt treatment, but Jeremy Northam is pretty terrific anyway.

(As for "supernatural" things, I do not know how they can even matter, if they do exist (another brane in the multiverse?). If they are supernatural, doesn't that mean they are different than nature? If so, then they have no intersection with the world, so are only speculative forever. If they DO interact with the natural world then there is a point of intersection, which means they are part of the world, which means they are not supernatural.)

(BTW, if I were to find out that the God who is popular with many people in the US were real, i.e., if I were to have the experience some evangelical meanies have gleefully threatened me with, and I found "myself" mind-intact after death, facing the vengeful God about to toss me in eternal hell, I would have to flip Him the bird. I would have to say, with Russell, "Not enough evidence, Lord", although I would hope to maintain the dignity not to call "Lord", this superthing sending me to everhell because I thought both He and I were too smart for Pascal's silly wager, because I used the mind and the gifts of culture (literacy, medicine and more) and found all the assertions about him and the whole pantheon of imaginary friends to be literally in-credible. Yeah, if that particular God is real, I would hope i had the gonads to defy Him, and I would hope you would, too. Such a capricious bully can't be trusted to keep any of his deals. I'm just sayin'...)

the USA's clings to religion the way a whore clings to her pimp

just like the 15th century Spanish were "blessed" by the church prior to engaging in torture and genocide in Latin America, the USA uses religion to try to cover the stench of their loathsome actions.

Religion is a salve for sinners.

Face it, there is no fantastical god, there is no magical afterlife full of fairies and sprites welcoming you to life everlasting, there is no purification for the evil you have wrought in your life by cowering on your knees and reciting a magic spell.

You are mortal, the same as ants, shit-beetles and maggots. You are born, you do good and evil things, you die, you rot away to your base particles to provde fertilizer and nourishment for the next generation of ants, shit-beetles and maggots. PERIOD. END OF STORY

You aren't going to meet ole Gramma and Grampa and your favourite dead dog while floating on clouds of purist white, while surrounded by a chior of naked yowling cherubs.

GROW UP...STOP READING FANTASY NOVELS

If there IS a heaven, I am sure it will be like CUBA...A place where you are highly unlikely to meet Americans.

ok but i find it annoying that "religion" so often means only those worshipping the famous god of abraham. there are many forms of religion, like for example that of Native Americans and many other first peoples that see Mother Earth, and all her critters as in some way divine- and why not? so you can be religious without believing in the monster in the sky so admired by the abrahamic faiths.
i know i can't prove the non-existence of that god, but let's be reasonable. i can't "prove" the non existence of Santa Claus or the ester bunny either, but it seems reasonable for me to proceed on the assumption that neither exists. which is why i no longer write letters to santa claus or pray to "god".
can somebody tell me why it seems reasonable to so many people that the self styled "vicar of christ" is so very much not like him? think about it. Jesus was a barefoot preacher who despised wealth and power. can you really, seriously imagine him decked out in all the fancy threads, living in a palace, riding in a popemobile- and for the love of mother earth KISSING HIS RING?
how is this possible? well it isn't.

What a conman is our Benedict! The world's best. Look at how he dresses. Consider the lavish palace where he lives while many of his flock starve.

While religion of any kind prevails the world is caught in a time warp and will go nowhere except to hell, perhaps a nuclear one.

Read more on www.dangerouscreation.com

Does no one realize that not so long ago the Pope could Lead his own Army into battle?
I quit the Catholic church many years ago. As a educated women I had no place. And along the way window shopped for another. And I will stay without one. For my mind is my own. And God? Where is this God, if he care so very much? Are we are just crazy monkeys, trying to make sense out of existence. If only we used that energy to different use. What we could be...

Canuckchuck, Maybe that is why I so enjoyed myself while I was there!

The article was sophomoric and poorly organized. So what? The point is that money, time, and press coverage, are being spent to promote this most organized, of Organized Religions, in this supposedly secular state that renounced ALL established religions early on.

I am tired of having the front page of my lousy local paper wasting all that red-ink on pictures of the Pope, when they could be talking about the economic problems facing us today. Nobody but a bunch of appointed old men, known as 'church dignitaries' elected the Pope. Maybe that is why George, The Appointed, [by a bunch of old men] is so happy to see him.

Or perhaps George is happy to share the Torture headlines with the head of the church that initiated the Inquisition, and the discussion of sexual abuse with someone other then a fellow Republican.

Enough already, there are too many things that need fixing to focus on crap like this.

I just feel sorry for those who have suffered today and in the past because of actions by 'Leaders' like these.

"Attacks on people and institutions for being religious belong in the same category as attacks on people for their race."

A race is something we're born into; Obama can't change that he is Black anymore than I cannot be White. Catholicism is a system of beliefs, and though one may be born into a Catholic family, one can choose whether or not to believe in the religion. A person who opposes Catholicism is no more of a bigot then one who opposes any other belief. You probably, like most decent people in the world, despise the beliefs that compel Osama bin Laden to violent jihad, but does that make you a bigot?

power slave.
while i didn't find this article interesting or convincing, your's is not a new, or particularly clever argument.
people are concerned about the harm done IN THE NAME of religion. not just physical assaults but indoctrination, structural and cultural damage, intolerance etc.
the crimes against humanity you speak of were done by people who happened to be atheists. virtually none of them were done in the name of secularism.
that is the fundamental difference.

Is this article sophomoric? No, not at all, although it does wander from the point a bit, when it - after starting out by accurately noting that people are manipulated into patronizing different religions as if the religions were businesses, which of course they are - segues into a discussion about refugees around the world, with the implication being that those refugees are all organized religion's fault, which isn't accurate. Some of them are, and some of them aren't.

But, even though Ms. Bennett's article is nearly as awkward as my second sentence, she has a point: organized religion HAS been responsible for many horrors throughout history, and no amount of noting that secular greed has also been responsible for many horrors throughout history is going to change this. Defending the wrongs of religion by stating that the secular world has also done bad things is just about as logical as defending George Bush's policies by stating that Abraham Lincoln made mistakes, too.

The history of organized religion is a history of violence and oppression, in many ways. We all know this. It's not even arguable.

But the problem with a religion isn't its text. Instead, it's the people in charge who tell their followers what the text means that are the problem. It's the money. It's the fact that churches have become highly profitable businesses. Get rid of the greedy men and the money and what you have left are millions of people around the world reading different religious texts and getting whatever solace they can get from doing so. And that harms no one.

But without organized religion the Iraq War wouldn't have been possible, and the Iraq War has harmed many, many people, and will harm many, many more before it's over.

* * *

But you know something? Ms. Bennett is almost certainly right when she says organized religions could probably put an end to war if they wanted to. If the leaders of organized religions, instead of telling their followers to fight in the name of God or to not use birth control in the name of God, told their followers that war itself was evil and that to fight in one was against God's (or Allah's or whoever's) will, wars would end.

But they don't do that. They have all this power to do good and they don't use it. Why not? I don't know, maybe it's not profitable.

* * *

Oh, and Skeptyk, that was a fascinating post. Thanks for writing it.

"The masses of human beings hunt for distraction because they have been made to believe that, as human beings, they are worthless, hopeless, helpless vessels in need of messiahs crafted in a variety of shapes, shades and shams by self-righteous men."

Imagine if Obama made that statement....he'd been nailed to a cross, no matter how true it is!

The editors of Common Dreams made a poor decision to publish Carolyn Bennett's sophomoric rant. I have been a reader of CD for years. More recently I have become a donating member, and I will continue to be such. I am a Catholic priest for almost 52 years. I spent 7 years in the richest parish in my area and 16 years in the poorest. I worked in one of the poorest areas of Latin America for 17 years. I have been working with and for poor people for over 60 years. I have been part of the battle for racial justice since before the civil rights movement of the 60s. I continue to work with and for immigrants, legal and otherwise. I have been critical of "papal pomp" and other aberrations from the Gospel of Jesus Christ that I know.

canuckchuck writes: "Face it, there is no fantastical god, there is no magical afterlife full of fairies and sprites welcoming you to life everlasting, there is no purification for the evil you have wrought in your life by cowering on your knees and reciting a magic spell."

That is the devious genius of religions. A dead person can no longer experience feelings, including disappointment. The promised rewards of religions are due and payable only after you've ceased to have the capacity to be disappointed. So a zealot who believes he will have 72 virgins upon death will never be disappointed. Thus, by definition, religions never disappoint the faithful.

As for the existence of god, the bible uses the term "word" to describe god. ("In the beginning was the word…") That is a mistranslation from the Greek "logos," which does mean "word" but also means "reason." That is, god is not the words of the bible, god is reason. I'm a believer because I devoutly believe that the one and only god that exists in this universe is reason.

The editors of Common Dreams made a poor decision to publish Carolyn Bennett's sophomoric rant. I have been a reader of CD for years. More recently I have become a donating member, and I will continue to be such. I am a Catholic priest for almost 52 years. I spent 7 years in the richest parish in my area and 16 years in the poorest. I worked in one of the poorest areas of Latin America for 17 years. I have been working with and for poor people for over 60 years. I have been part of the battle for racial justice since before the civil rights movement of the 60s (a movement very much inspired by the Gospel of Jesus Christ). I continue to work with and for immigrants, legal and otherwise. I have been critical of "papal pomp" and other aberrations from the Gospel of Jesus Christ that I know.
There are many thousands of priests, sisters, brothers and lay people around the world who currently are dedicated to serving the poor and marginalized, recognizing the extraordinary dignity of each individual human being and trying to construct living conditions that accord with that dignity. In the last half century or more there have been many Christian martyrs, killed because they radicalized the people, as Jesus did, with the radical Gospel.
Many other Christian churches and other world religions can make similar claims about their very real and practical commitments to alleviate suffering and build up human dignity for all. But I won't go on except to suggest that the editors of CD find someone more rational than Carolyn Bennett to write on religion. Ann Lamott would be very comfortable writing for CD as would Sarah Miles, the self-styled radical, left wing lesbian author of "Take This Bread: A Radical Conversion". Both would bring a wholesome, critical perspective to the subject that proved to be far beyond the critical skills of Carolyn Bennett.

Carolyn Bennett's article is okay in terms of the facts on internally displaced refugees, and so on, but we know that all of these human rights abuses were crimes rooted in state, imperialism, capitalism, the MIC, a little "benefit" for the leadership of the state of Israel, while not for [Judaism], etc., so not for religion. Even if right-wing, ... religious leaders and laity sided with the underlying or root wars of aggression, these still were commanded and conducted by state, and most likely would be committed anyway. And not only people of any of the religions Bennett refers to in her article supported the war on Iraq, as well as the one on Afghanistan.

They, the imperialist elites, only employ religion and not for learning, trying to improve themselves, ..., but for cover, distraction, disguisement most of all; all things that are not good, but damn wrong. They employ religion fraudulently.

If the wars of aggression and Western imperialism, capitalism, ... being exercised by Western states and corporations, with their many millions of shareholders going along for the profitable "ride" or drive, if all this being done all over our planet was not done, then the problems she specifically refers to in the article would not exist; or if any did, then it'd still be next to not at all compared to what we have today.

Religion did not corrupt Rome and make it into a beast; religion did not make Rome's leaders launch conquests for domination; etc. It's Rome that employed religion for empire's "sake". It's the Roman elite families who appointed their sons, nephews, and other known brats, to become the RCC's high-ranking clergy; it's not the primitive, original church that forced this, for Rome was too powerful to be able to force it against its will, in this sort of way anyway. Or so I've gathered so far anyway.

Not only is it unjustified to claim that the religious leaders of the religions she refers to commanded these Western wars of aggression, imperialism, etc., for they did not command these affairs; she also faults [all] religious leaders of the religions she selectively or subjectively refers to, as if all of them are the same, think the same way, have the same views on life, religion, philosophy, etc. She's seriously exaggerating and 'stereotyping', which normally means [overly] generalising, which in turn infers having an erroneous and therefore unjustified view; except for the portion that is truthful, though while this often applies to a minority, sometimes relatively to very tiny.

We know the latter because we find and know of it being true outside of the topic of religions.

She must surely know that Pope John Paul II firmly spoke in opposition to the threat of war on Iraq, and more than once. He did this over months, condemned the war as unjustifiable, saying that Bush Jr was or is a 'blood cult Christian', which is to basically say 'blood cult anti-Christian', which is reflected in the reporting that was published years ago and on his brief consideration of whether Bush Jr might be the Antichrist; Pope JP II briefly had that question in mind. I also did, a little, but mostly thought of Bush Jr more in the "simpler" terms of, "Is he possessed, so controlled by demons, or what?", instead of 'Antichrist'; but, hey, it's close enough match. In any case, Pope JP II spoke more than enough times against this war, as well as having previously spoken against prior U.S. wars and other crimes of the Western states, esp. USA. All of these were Pope JP II's words during the run-up phase to this war on Iraq, btw.

The following article provides a good view to consider juxtaposite to that of Bennet.

"Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Washington

by Richard C. Cook

Global Research, April 17, 2008"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8715

I was expecting that Cook's article beared bad news, but it is very fair, and, in some respects, good. And it's good to learn that Pope Ben. XVI refused to accept the dinner invitation of the White House. Perhaps it's an intentional, but subtle way of saying that he does NOT dine with war criminals, etc. It would be a likely reason for his rejection anyway.

John Nichols' recent article is also of value for juxtaposite view.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/15/8313

Bennett criticises the religious leaders she subjectively chose to refer to as being guilty of proselytizing, yet it's what she's somewhat presented, or said about her self, too, with this article or hers. She religiously proselytizes and lies through her dramatic exaggeration and distortion of reality.

Lastly, it seems becoming Pope has done former Cardinal Ratzinger plenty of good; there seems to be very real improvements in the man as a high-ranking religious leader. I was pissed off about him being selected and appointed to the Papacy, but he's turned out to be very and overall fine, after all. He seems to have improved enough that I wonder if he'd again order former Archbishop Oscar Romero to stop his needed peace and justice making efforts; for he doesn't seem to be that way anymore.

So when will Bennett wake up to the reality that it's the Bush-Cheney cabal et al who commanded and fully, incompetently but still fully planned these wars? I wonder.

Thank you, Carolyn Bennett. It is wonderful and refreshing to hear some really straight talk in these twisted times. Organized religion has been the enemy of religiousness--putting people's own discoveries in straight jackets. And to claim that secularism has claimed more lives than religious crusades is not only erroneous but misses the point. The notion that there is ONE RIGHT path to truth is the poison of our times and of the last several millenia.

TO AndrewP: I commend you for your years of service to the poor as a Catholic priest. (I attended Catholic schools through the 12th grade.) But you represent a tiny fraction of believers of all faiths. A majority of believers are indifferent to the plight of the poor except for obligatory lip service and an occasional prayer. And a large segment of "believers" are actively exacerbating global misery in one way or another. Meanwhile, some who work with the poor are non-believers. So your good works as a priest do not validate religion in general.

As to the Catholic Church, in your 60 years of service, you couldn't help but see that much of the world's disease, genocide, war, rape, enslavement, starvation, brutality, inhumanity, etc. could be alleviated by encouraging responsible family planning (using modern scientific methods of birth control) and, when necessary, abortion. The Church's continued prohibition against using these tools to help counteract human suffering is an abomination more reprehensible than any evils you can dredge up in the bible.

" Sarvananda April 19th, 2008 9:19 pm

Thank you, Carolyn Bennett. It is wonderful and refreshing to hear some really straight talk in these twisted times."

ONLY IT IS NOT 'straight talk', and my above post explains this surely enough.

"The notion that there is ONE RIGHT path to truth is the poison of our times and of the last several millenia."

That's not the teaching of the RCC anyway, for when the Pope erroneously says that the RCC is the sole way to Salvation, he's not saying there's only one path to finding truth. Plain common sense combined with enough years of experience in life tells us that truth can be found following various paths. After all, there's NOTHING really religious about 'truth', while 'Salvation' and Heaven are definitely religious topics.

Sarvananda, you need to work on your logic, and should try to provide informative, useful comments, instead of kiddy-minded cheerleading.

My above post provides a fine starting point.

VMULIER: Bravo! Your post transcends the discussion that too often gets tripped up by reason, as if the human MIND is the answer to the great mysteries. The HEART is the path to the greater Truths!

For additional juxtaposite sort of education, but the [real] kind, not the errors in Bennett's view, I just did a little Web searching to see what'd turn up for recommendable articles and found the following.

"Pope worries that big powers control decision-making

Apr 18 04:18 PM US/Eastern

By VICTOR L. SIMPSON
Associated Press Writer"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D904G5L80&show_article=1

That's Pope Ben. XVI speaking at the UNGA on Friday, and his words are wholly fine, surely to be welcomed and by everyone.

There's only one thing he said, and according to the above article, that I disagree with, and it's wherein the article says:

"He said the United Nations plays a key role in monitoring how well governments protect their citizens.

"Indeed, this is coming to be recognized as the moral basis for a government's claim to authority," the pope said. ""

While he may be right in theory, for what he speaks of is what the UN is supposed to represent, based on paper, reality is starkly different. Maybe he's barely, if at all, aware of the dark reality involving the UN, with the UN acting in very criminal, deceitful, etc., terms; like it's so-called peace-keepers [often] not being this, but the dark contrary, f.e. There are plenty of examples.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's barely, if at all, aware of these dark Western powers-UN realities, their many crimes against humanity. After all, he's likey not spent any time reading from alternative sources, surely always sticking with msm or like news sources, and on Vatican advisers who are often enough FAR from being saints. After all, he's only person and the Internet, the www part, has been around since only 1993, and it took some years before [many] people made serious use of this mass comm. tech.

But the rest of the AP article is wholly fine; with a brief word on some anti-RCC or anti-Pope Hindu whining in NJ and about the RCC converting Hindus in India, as if the church could ever force people to covert. The Hindu govt would surely act if the church was reported [forcing] Hindus to convert.

The church might be able to do that through its ties with Western capitalism, imperialism, corporatism, ..., something like that; but only if the church tried to do something like this, and then only if it could convince employers in the areas of India where the church is supposed forcing Hindus to convert to not hire anyone who refuses to convert.

In that case, who's more guilty, the church, or the employers for going along with church bs? The employers, of course; for they could just tell the church's clergy there to "fly away ... parasites!". After all, such clergy would be parasites of the unhealthy kind, for they'd be acting with the imperialists, capitalists, corporatists, corruptors and predators of societies; very malignant parasitism.

But I doubt that the church is capable of altering society in India to the point of being able to cause social changes leading to Hindus being denied equal human rights as citizens of India and then Earth.

Nonetheless, the Hindu in NJ should realise that the Pope is not responsible, and that's if the conversions happening in India are unjustly forced, or simply forced, which I doubt to be true. Maybe it is, but I will need proof to believe force is being used.

ALSO, Bennett's mistaken about the following.

"Human beings are not naturally predisposed to opiate: religion. They are pushed."

'Opiate', for religion, and as per Karl Marx, was not meant as use of heroin, f.e., is often or usually thought of today, but in terms of relief from pain, suffering; someone provided a good reminder of this week. Included in that person's words is that Marx was not speaking in anti-religious terms; again, only saying that people or many religious people do use religion for relief from pains, sufferings.

And humans [are] predisposed to seeking relief from pain, sufferings, sorrows, injustices, ....

So Bennett doesn't know what she's talking about; or else she does to considerable degree, but while not expressing herself well, for .... Again, my first post above explains, I think enough.

" Saul Friedman April 19th, 2008 10:55 am

We are still paying for the crusades. And weren't 9/11 and the Iraq war a couple of faith-based initiatives?"

To some extent, I agree that we still pay for the Crusades, but what we are instead and really paying for is the ancient beast known as the Roman Empire, which existed long before Jesus of Nazareth was born, with a history totally or quasi-totally of wars of aggression for conquest and domination, i.e., EMPIRE.

And those Crusades did not involve the original, primitive Church, for that Church no longer existed; except wherein members [individually] kept their faith and social values in line with what the primitive Church's writers said Jesus had said. Francis of Assisi was among these Christians who worked on being and remaining true to Jesus, and from what I've read, he usually did not attend the elite churches, instead having used abandoned churches in the countrysides.

It's not the church that corrupted Rome, but the state of Rome that corrupted the church. It was the Roman elites who appointed or saw to the appointing of their sons, nephews, and other elitist brats they knew, to the top positions in the church; it was not the general members of the church who did this, but the Roman elites.

As for, "And weren't 9/11 and the Iraq war a couple of faith-based initiatives?", I'd say that the most critically true answer is 'NO!'. Religion was used again, but fraudulently, for disguisement, or camouflage, and for gaining public supporters the news media would report on, and many others would criticise. The 9/11 attacks were the 'New Pearl Harbour' needed, strategically, for launching the escalation of the GWoT; and note that I said 'escalation', instead of 'commencement', for the latter was years before Bush was criminally appointed Pres. in 2000.

That may have been done to "benefit" the leadership of the state of Israel, while certainly not done to benefit most Israelis, including most of the Jewish Israelis; and definitely was not done for RCCs for the Pope, John Paul II, clearly and loudly enough opposed the even threat of war on Iraq, critically opposing and without a flaw present in his words about this.

And it wasn't done for Islam. After all, some people might pretend that it was done because of the Western-and-Israel crimes against Palestinians and the people of Lebanon, but this'd make no sense. After all, Usama Bin Ladin and other Al Qa'ida leaders, among possibly or surely many other members, were trained via the CIA and the Pakistani ISI; it's apparently the USA that saw to the Taliban coming to power in Afghanistan; and they'd surely know that if they attacked the USA, then it would strike back and hit Islam hard. It wouldn't make sense for them to strike the USA because of the situation in Palestine, while knowing that other primarily Muslim countries would be consequentially hit with superpower war machinery.

In any case, that people are fooled by the [appearances] of all of this being due to religion have cause to be fooled, for they're not dreaming up what appears to them; but it's only appearances, not telling the onlooker what's really underneath or behind. It's to look at a black box and think that what you see on the outside surface tells you everything that is inside. Sometimes, we have to lift the hood to examine what's underneath in order to be able to diagnose and repair problems. Don't lift that hood? Then you opt to not bother understanding the problem; therefore opting to also not try to do anything about repairing the problem or failing (or failed) system.

" Daniel David April 19th, 2008 11:13 am

In order for us to change the official national behavior of the USA for the better, we need American Catholics and other American Christians to switch their votes from the neo-conservative (Republican) side to align with liberals.
It's hard for me to see how this article helps us attract those voters and make that progress."

Valid conclusion, imo; but as for "American" Catholics significantly voting for the RP, while the DP has proven to be no better, perhaps even worse, I wonder what the voting statistics are on the RCs in the USA.

I see people saying U.S. RCs need to stop voting RP, but providing not stats to back up this call.

But DP has proven NO better, and maybe it is historically worse; something I've read before, but not recalling the author or article, I can't provide a link to it. Nonetheless, the DP's not really been better for many decades ... en masse already.

" vmulier April 19th, 2008 11:51 am

Ms. Bennett's analysis is apt. Religions are predatory."

That is BUNK. It's immediately obvious that vmulier does not even know what 'religion' means, for religion is related to the same root as 'relationship' is; it's not necessarily organised on an individual basis, alone, and is not an institution. Organised or institutionalised religions is the fitting way to refer to what vmulier and many others mean.

Religion can be as personal, individual, as philosophy can be. Both can be and have been institutionalised too. Communism is not an institution to begin with, but does pertain to how a state may be defined in terms of governance and very much with respect to economy, poverty alleviation, etc.; and it can be democratic, or not, for the comparisons for communism are socialism and capitalism. Humans corrupted humanly instituted churches or religions, govts, and every other institution of human making; just that the corruption varies, for it can be minor to cancerously severe.

Yet the present GWoT is not religiously based. Again, the religious front we're given for viewing is camouflage much more than truthfully telling us who the real movers of these wars of aggression are and what their real purposes are; and their purpose is NOT religion, but GREED. There's Zionism, and some of the neocons are Jews and dual-citizens, having also citizenship in Israel, oddly; not having thought that U.S. govt officials of such high offices could be anything other than only U.S. citizen. After all, it's the highest offices of not the UN, but the USA.

But those neocons have more in mind than only simultaneously "benefiting" (oxymoronically) the leadership (not the citizenry, general population, but the leadership) of the quasi-superpower state of Israel.

See, that military power and the insanity, 'blood cult' insanity of the leadership of Israel provides the Western elites with a majorly powerful ally, so base, right there in the Middle East; very strategic location.

If they want Israel, this strong military power in our world (something like 5th), to expand, then the real purpose might not have anything really to do with the religious, Biblical belief about Zion, the 'Holy Land Promise', but for strategic military power in the Middle East. Look at the expansiveness of PNAC and, I suppose also fitting anyway, Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, 'The Grand Chessboard'. What ever there is for the "sake" of Israel's leadership in those materials is surely very, very little.

They want conquest and domination over the whole world; not to expand Israel for any more reason than for this Empire expansion program of the Western elites.

Bush is NO Christian; it doesn't matter how many times he attends church, he's still and more than obviously not Christian. He's a FRAUD, just like the rest of his family, Clintons, etc., are all frauds in not only political but also religious terms, like quasi-thoroughly.

He doesn't care about Israel; he's unable to [care] about anything. Caring and him parted ways LONG ago; as also applies to the rest of his family. To care requires the ability of loving, and this is far beyond his capabilities. Whatever love you think he displays about his daughters is not love, but a man who's psychotically confused, ignorant, etc., and easily manipulated by his pupeteers. He's incapable of true caring and love.

But he'll do as told, and he's directed to be a president who stands with the Israeli leadership. They're strategically needed by the real, while hidden ruling elites of the U.S. govt; and more than only it for govts.

Wherein I said, above, that religion and communism are not institutions or organised, the above was not wholly correctly or sufficiently stated. Communism is a social philosophy that is organised in terms of thought, how it's thought out, what is defined to be required, .... And of course govt is needed in order to apply the concept of communism. But it's first, of all, a view expressing how society should work for there to be elimination or else avoidance of disparity between rich and poor, etc.; the purpose is elimination of socio-economic injustices, and thereby improvement of society, a step in the direction of being more [civilised].

And religions consist of organised thought, beliefs, that is, they, especially when demythologised, are coherent views on society and the life after the temporal world, although maybe not all religions have any focus on the after-life (I'm not sure, not being anywhere near expert on religion[s]).

By demyth'ing religion I'm not think of, f.e., the Christians treating the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth as myth, but teachings within Christianity and which are contrary to Scripture; hence, f.e., 'Mother of God' is a full mythical reference in Christianity, for true Christianity has not such personage at all, based on Scripture. And Scripture is the foundation; containing some flaws, one or more of which Jesus exposed as being things to not do.

VMULIER -- Your sincerity and depth of HEART is a far better CHOICE for our intention (than mere thought and reason - how droll and uninspired), and I so (totally) agree with:

SIOUXROSE's comments ">Bravo! Your post transcends the discussion that too often gets tripped up by reason, as if the human MIND is the answer to the great mysteries. The HEART is the path to the greater Truths!"

I still can sense the dim vestiges of imprinted _" S P I R I T U A L I S M "_ being somehow unclean, or to be done in closed off caves of DARKNESS, which is just the opposite of its promise and reward.

¿ How disgusting to have had the greatest part of my being

disassociated and aligned with evil ?

Religion is but a tool to separate from our true power and identification with it, so as to subjugate our lives to meekly following authoritarian and patronizing hierarchy - so sad, to bad, the edificial affront to self-based faith is crumbling as it proves incapable of adapting to a vastly changing reality.

¿ Perhaps it is actually our ascendent spirit
-- that grows beyond mere confines of "organized" anything --
that prompts and motivates the neoCONuts to prepare for
the END of ALL that they KNOW ?

Namaste

Religions per se and religious dogma is and has always been dreadfully contentious......no wonder WARS are waged in it's name or as a cover for more evil intentions by ignorant simple minded or brainwashed people...quoting Namaste "....meekly following authoritarian and patronizing hierarchy - so sad, too bad...

Power_Slave (April 19th, 2008 10:27 am) wrote: "When Religion manages to kill as many as secularism has this century, then we should consider banning it." [...] "Religion couldn't kill this many if it tried…"

Aside from Maoist and Stalinist Communism being religions unto themselves by exalting the Supreme Leader as god, aren't you forgetting the hundreds of millions who have died or killed for their religion in just the past two centuries? Hitler and Mussolini professed a belief in Christianity, yet destroyed over 50 million human lives between them. The Japanese Empire during WWII worshipped their emperor as a living god on Earth and sent millions more to their graves. Before that there were various holy wars undertaken for the defense of the Pope or a particular sect; the horror of the Spanish Inquisition; the gore-drenched clearing of America by Puritans and others claiming it was God's will; the enslavement and murder of Africans, also done with the supposed blessing of the Almighty; and the bloody domination of most of the globe at one time or another by countries like Great Britain, France, Spain, Germany and the United States -- all claiming they are Christian nations. Also read of all of the smiting and smoting in the Bible -- it's been a massacre in the name of some god or another for all of recorded history.

At least since the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 AD and subsequently received 'special dispensation' to kill his enemies, the Christian religion, for the most part, has worked to underwrite and reinforce the power of monarchs and despots. The American experiment, founded as a secular government separating church and religion, was established partly to avoid the gruesome religious wars that had raged across Europe for centuries. (Of course, these wars were really about territory, riches and property, but ostensibly they were religious battles.)

I think we'd all be better off without organized religion. (Notice I didn't say without belief in a higher power or a 'disorganized' religion.) Without God/gods or the Devil to blame for their actions, people would have to take personal responsibility for the horrible things they do. It's a different matter to say "It says in the Bible" and "It's my fault."

The fact is, there's been only one Christian -- and, as Mark Twain said, they caught and crucified him early.

BTW, what would the media be saying if Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor, had been leading a church that covered up for members who were molesting children and then spent a fortune of his congregation's donations to defend them?

Good post, Skeptyk, and if you want to read what God thinks of humanity, and gambling, just read the OT Book of Job from the Bible next time you're in a motel room. (It'll be in the night table drawer.)

Canuckchuck (April 19th, 2008 4:42 pm), you remind me of that story about the little boy whose cat died while he was at school. His mother, knowing his heart would be broken, buried the cat before he got home and, when the kid arrived, told him his pet had died, adding, "Don't worry, dear, your cat's in heaven with God now."

The kid replied, "Oh, yeah -- what's God gonna do with a dead cat?"

Canuckchuck (April 19th, 2008 4:45 pm), LOL -- or Republicans.

TurnoffyourTV (April 19th, 2008 5:37 pm), I think if god is anywhere, he or she is that voice inside your head telling you not to be a jerk. I like Emerson's line: "Sensible ... and conscientious [people] all over the world [are] of one religion."

Mcmackle (April 19th, 2008 5:53 pm) I'll believe Benedict XVI is serious when he sells off the Vatican's riches, gives the proceeds to the poor, and preaches as a pauper, as Jesus did. Until then, he's just another well-paid peddler of phony piety.

The Pope should reread this part of the NT, along with the Bush Administration:

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also..."
-- Jesus in Matthew 6:19, KJV.

They might also review this little tidbit:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon [wealth or worldly things]."
-- Jesus in Matthew 6:24, KJV.

AndrewP (April 19th, 2008 8:26 pm), I have encountered such sincere and altruistic persons such as yourself in Catholicism and other faiths, but you must admit you are out-weighed by those who treat the priesthood as a job no different than working for AT&T. I admire you for sticking it out and trying to make the world a better place, but I suspect you would be busy doing good works even if you had no religion.

All believers should insist on more collaborations from our world's religions, but especially from those who believe in the One God who makes all one.

Fuck your 'One God', your messiah and your so called 'book'.

Pass or fail?

bring a wholesome, critical perspective to the subject that proved to be far beyond the critical skills of Carolyn Bennett.

Oh fuck your corrupt and fabulously wealthy pope. He thinks religions can answer natural questions as well as science, he shut down the papal observatory, and he's a blatant creationist as well as a former NAZI.

He's one pathetic FUCK of a pope compared to John Paul.

One of the most amusing images I've seen in a very long time appeared above the fold on the front page of the San Diego Union Tribune this week.

There, in full color, was a choreographed, costumed procession rivaling any Hollywood extravaganza. A legion of cardinals parading the way for the Pope's mass for 50,000 in a US ballpark.

PLAY BALL !!
KILL THE UMPIRE !!
GIMME A BEER !!
PASS THE COLLECTION PLATE !!