Once again, for those who are interested in this sort of thing.

The Pew Report on the Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion

http://www.pewforum....n-findings.aspx

The Pew Research Center finds that there has been a general increase in both Government-mandated restrictions on religious practice and social hostility towards religion in one form or another in the year from 2009 to 2010. 160 countries harassed religious groups in 2010 compared with 147 in 2009. However, whereas an additional 14 countries were found to be placing restrictions on Christians, fewer were harassing Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. Furthermore, looking at the period from 2007 – 2010, we can see that only for Muslims has the number of nations placing restrictions on religious expression and practice been reduced. It would appear that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s strategy of “civilizational jihad” is having some effect.

The countries with the highest levels of government restriction towards one or more religions are, as expected, the Muslim-majority nations (but not Malaysia), Communist and former Communist nations, and those where religious tension is a political factor (e.g. Israel, Sri Lanka, Myanmar). There is some overlap between these nations and those presenting high levels of social hostility towards religions, except for the Communist and former Communist nations, where the government’s hostility towards religious freedom does not reflect any equivalent hostility in the population at large.

Not all government restrictions, nor social hostility, are draconian by many people’s standards. Some relate to the wearing of certain forms of religious apparel, constraints on the practice of Sharia, the wearing of beards, e.g. by soldiers, and the rights of prisoners to certain exceptions on religious grounds. Those who lean toward the libertarian end of the philosophical spectrum may wonder why the mass killer and jihadi, Major Hassan, can’t wear a beard at his court martial. Others may ask why, in a military procedure where the major is being tried as a Marine Corps officer, not as a Muslim jihadi, an exception should be made for him.

The sidebar on legal findings and social disputation in the United States is interesting for what it reveals as more than just a simple issue of freedom of expression and assembly. Genuine concerns among communities over perceived threats to their social cohesion are revealed as well as requests or demands for acknowledgement of religious faith as something that overrides other conventions and regulations.

There are so many points which could be made that it is difficult to know which ones to pick.

Mainly this whole report reflects the increasing conflict worldwide between Christians and Muslims, which is as much political as religious. Does it also reflect a more widespread conviction of the importance of religion? Or is it just that religion is being used as a political tool? Is religion being made of importance irrespective of whether its supposed adherents really believe it or not? How much of the change is due to the extremist wings of Christianity and Islam?

The major non-proselytising religions, Hinduism and Buddhism (the latter being a philosophy rather than a religion anyway) come off well, as one would expect.

Those who lean toward the libertarian end of the philosophical spectrum may wonder why the mass killer and jihadi, Major Hassan, can’t wear a beard at his court martial. Others may ask why, in a military procedure where the major is being tried as a Marine Corps officer, not as a Muslim jihadi, an exception should be made for him.

This is surely the one man pushing the envelope to try to embarrass the authorities that he considers are opposed to him.

The media will almost always support the 'underdog' against such authorities, even though the whole scenario is manufactured by this 'victim'. It's another Samson pulling the temple down around his ears, thus killing himself in order to harm his 'enemies', even when the opposition is in the right.

There are so many points which could be made that it is difficult to know which ones to pick.

Mainly this whole report reflects the increasing conflict worldwide between Christians and Muslims, which is as much political as religious. Does it also reflect a more widespread conviction of the importance of religion? Or is it just that religion is being used as a political tool? Is religion being made of importance irrespective of whether its supposed adherents really believe it or not? How much of the change is due to the extremist wings of Christianity and Islam?

The major non-proselytising religions, Hinduism and Buddhism (the latter being a philosophy rather than a religion anyway) come off well, as one would expect.

I expect it really is all about Christianity and Islam, as you sort of suggest. Buddhism isn't seen widely as a threat except in Chinese-occupied Tibet, the Tamil regions of Sri Lanka, and perhaps among some evangelical Christians in South Korea. Hinduism would arouse hostility in some parts of the sub-continent outside India, and perhaps in Fiji where the polynesians and assimilated Indians resent the energetic and unassimilated Gujerati immigrants. Judaism is small and not resented in most places except where it is perceived as Zionist. Sikhs, to my knowledge, do not arouse hostility except in some Indian cities at some times.

Islam, outside its homelands, is seen as alien and a little threatening. However, its status as a world religion gives it some clout, and political leaders generally do not try to antagonize the Muslim communities. The intimidation and violence of its head-banging element also does seem to be successful in silencing overt and public opposition to some Islamic beliefs, practices and objectives. In addition, the "civilizational jihad" referred to in my original post, conducted by the OIC, appears to have co-opted some Western leaders, including Hillary Clinton, and paves the way for Islam to be given an acknowledged status above all other religions, regardless of where it is located.

The interesting thing about Christianity is that is attracting more government restriction and social hostility in supposedly Christian countries. In the West, though to a lesser extent in the US, the default position increasingly for political and social credibility is secularism and secular humanism. A secular humanist expressing a view on abortion rights, for example, would have his views assessed by the media in terms of their reasonableness. A Catholic, however, expressing a view would be regarded as one who has been indoctrinated, or intellectually suspect, and hence can't have his views taken in full seriousness. There is a tendency to believe that Christians form a barrier to human progress and that they must, therefore, be regarded with suspicion. In more recent years, even their wish to identify themselves publicly as Christians (by wearing crosses, for example) has been increasingly challenged in the courts, as this public display of one's beliefs may offend others. The wearing of the hijab, however, (not burkha) has not generally been challenged outside France, and even there is only proscribed in certain sites, e.g. public schools. To western secularists, Islamic practice is often identified as cultural rather than religious, and hence is accepted. Christianity, to these people, is no longer a widespread cultural expression, but a body of doctrines to which an increasingly beleaguered and irrational minority subscribes.

"The interesting thing about Christianity is that is attracting more government restriction and social hostility in supposedly Christian countries. "

Interesting indeed, XSH. I think it's an understandable reaction to centuries of compulsory religion.

I think it's an understandable reaction to centuries of compulsory religion.

In a nutshell.

More and more people are getting fed up with those of a religious ilk getting special treatment, fed up with the constant demands for respect which they have yet to earn. fed up with never ending attacks on science and reason.

You would have thought that the religious would be happy but they are not, they will not be happy until you believe it to.

If you don't like contaception, don't use it

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

If you don't like pork, don't eat it.

.....

I think it's an understandable reaction to centuries of compulsory religion.

In a nutshell.

More and more people are getting fed up with those of a religious ilk getting special treatment, fed up with the constant demands for respect which they have yet to earn. fed up with never ending attacks on science and reason.

You would have thought that the religious would be happy but they are not, they will not be happy until you believe it to.

If you don't like contaception, don't use it

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

If you don't like pork, don't eat it.

.....

...and if you don't like religion, stop complaining about it.

I think it's an understandable reaction to centuries of compulsory religion.

In a nutshell.

More and more people are getting fed up with those of a religious ilk getting special treatment, fed up with the constant demands for respect which they have yet to earn. fed up with never ending attacks on science and reason.

You would have thought that the religious would be happy but they are not, they will not be happy until you believe it to.

If you don't like contaception, don't use it

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

If you don't like pork, don't eat it.

.....

...and if you don't like religion, stop complaining about it.

Makes no sense, any more than 'If you don't like contaception, stop complaining about it' does.

I think it's an understandable reaction to centuries of compulsory religion.

In a nutshell.

More and more people are getting fed up with those of a religious ilk getting special treatment, fed up with the constant demands for respect which they have yet to earn. fed up with never ending attacks on science and reason.

You would have thought that the religious would be happy but they are not, they will not be happy until you believe it to.

If you don't like contaception, don't use it

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

If you don't like pork, don't eat it.

.....

...and if you don't like religion, stop complaining about it.

Not that I do complain about religion much but when the religious stop telling me how I ought to live my life I will.

I think it's an understandable reaction to centuries of compulsory religion.

In a nutshell.

More and more people are getting fed up with those of a religious ilk getting special treatment, fed up with the constant demands for respect which they have yet to earn. fed up with never ending attacks on science and reason.

You would have thought that the religious would be happy but they are not, they will not be happy until you believe it to.

If you don't like contaception, don't use it

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

If you don't like pork, don't eat it.

.....

...and if you don't like religion, stop complaining about it.

Not that I do complain about religion much but when the religious stop telling me how I ought to live my life I will.

I don't post about my beliefs as I don't think it is anybody's business. Having said that, I get a little tired wading through all the anti-religion nonsense floating around this forum.

I resent atheists trying to tell a person their belief is a superstition and ignores science and reason, neither of which are true.

I don't post about my beliefs as I don't think it is anybody's business.

The World needs more people like you.

I resent atheists trying to tell a person their belief is a superstition and ignores science and reason, neither of which are true.

Bad argument when something is believed on faith.

I resent atheists trying to tell a person their belief is a superstition and ignores science and reason, neither of which are true.

But all religion is a superstition, believing in an invisible puppet master in the sky for which there is not a single shred of evidence. (OK, some versions of religion believe the invisible puppet master is dead, or has given up on humanity and no longer gets involved, but the puppet master is still there in the beliefs and in the background.)

And religion teaches "facts" that fly in the face of all reason, such as that the sun sets each day in a muddy pond (Islam), magical flying donkeys exist (Islam again), pi is equal to four (Judaism), people can walk on water (Christianity) and that dead people can rise from the dead (Christianity again).

Clearly the atheists who tell people that their faith is an irrational superstition are only compassionate, caring individuals trying to save immortal souls from the hell fires reserved for those who fail to believe in and worship the flying spaghetti monster.

Without religion we would still be small settlements scattered throughout the Meditteranean, fighting each other on the slightest pretext, enslaving our enemies and living in filth.

Without religion we shall probably wind up that way, anyhow.

Without religion we would still be small settlements scattered throughout the Meditteranean, fighting each other on the slightest pretext, enslaving our enemies and living in filth.

Without religion we shall probably wind up that way, anyhow.

You may wish to edit your post HB (without & without)

Not that I do complain about religion much but when the religious stop telling me how I ought to live my life I will.

Puzzles me a bit, this one, endure! You mean, like, you want to be told how to live your life?

I resent atheists trying to tell a person their belief is a superstition and ignores science and reason, neither of which are true.

But all religion is a superstition, believing in an invisible puppet master in the sky for which there is not a single shred of evidence. (OK, some versions of religion believe the invisible puppet master is dead, or has given up on humanity and no longer gets involved, but the puppet master is still there in the beliefs and in the background.)

And religion teaches "facts" that fly in the face of all reason, such as that the sun sets each day in a muddy pond (Islam), magical flying donkeys exist (Islam again), pi is equal to four (Judaism), people can walk on water (Christianity) and that dead people can rise from the dead (Christianity again).

Clearly the atheists who tell people that their faith is an irrational superstition are only compassionate, caring individuals trying to save immortal souls from the hell fires reserved for those who fail to believe in and worship the flying spaghetti monster.

And your post is a classic example of an atheist being a compassionate, caring individual.

Without religion we would still be small settlements scattered throughout the Meditteranean, fighting each other on the slightest pretext, enslaving our enemies and living in filth.

Without religion we shall probably wind up that way, anyhow.

You may wish to edit your post HB (without & without)

No.

My post is correct - maybe your understanding of English is as poor as your understanding of the role played by religion in the civilising of the human race - despite the various back-slidings that have occurred at times.

Without religion we would still be small settlements scattered throughout the Meditteranean, fighting each other on the slightest pretext, enslaving our enemies and living in filth.

Without religion we shall probably wind up that way, anyhow.

You may wish to edit your post HB (without & without)

No.

My post is correct - maybe your understanding of English is as poor as your understanding of the role played by religion in the civilising of the human race - despite the various back-slidings that have occurred at times.

What you are saying is one of the most absurd things I have heard in many a year which is why I thought you had made an error. Would you be ever so kind as to glance again at what you have written as I find it hard to accept that you can possibly believe it to be true.

Without religion we would still be small settlements scattered throughout the Meditteranean, fighting each other on the slightest pretext, enslaving our enemies and living in filth.

Without religion we shall probably wind up that way, anyhow.

You may wish to edit your post HB (without & without)

No.

My post is correct - maybe your understanding of English is as poor as your understanding of the role played by religion in the civilising of the human race - despite the various back-slidings that have occurred at times.

What you are saying is one of the most absurd things I have heard in many a year which is why I thought you had made an error. Would you be ever so kind as to glance again at what you have written as I find it hard to accept that you can possibly believe it to be true.

Try a little harder, notmyself. And read some history when you have time..... not the kind of history which slavers over all the bad things religious people have done, but the social history which tells how cohesive societies developed and what held them together.

I suppose I'm a religious person, though for the past 30 years or so I've not felt particularly warmly towards institutional religion. Having said that, I worked in Catholic Education for 23 years and recognize from that experience that, despite their manifest faults, churches, religious congregations and faith-based schools and universities do a lot of good work. We hear about their downsides, and some Church spokesmen don't help, but it's not all bad.

I've also witnessed a lot of dissent, some of it quite open, within church communities, and would suggest that, as informed dissent, it is much more credible to me than the shots fired at churches and faith-based institutions from outside.

Having said all that, I don't have a problem with philosophical atheism. It makes sense to me. It is logical and reasonable as far as logic and reason can go. However, can logic go far enough? I would say, as Wittgenstein famously said, "the limits of my language are the limits of my world", and clearly language is inadequate to make sense of infinity, for example, and the origin and source of being. Language can only probe and talk about phenomena. Mathematics also. What can't be measured and calibrated and described, observed and subjected to testing and the possibility of falsification is beyond the limits of language and the scientific method.

So perhaps it is quite reasonable not to speculate about anything that may lie beyond these limits. To speak of gods within the limits of language can, as atheists say, convey the impression that God and/or the gods are physical beings, somewhere in the universe, somewhere “in the sky”.

The 17th century rationalist philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, argued that if God is to be the subject of any philosophy he must have a body. By the same logic, if I'm right, in an infinite universe there should be no reason why physical "Gods" may not exist - beings with extraordinary powers to create, sustain and direct, but most substantial religions (other than Mormonism) do not in fact base their theologies on that belief.

Perhaps philosophical atheism is not so much a set of beliefs about what is believable as a philosophy of method. To a “pure” atheist (as opposed to an “applied” one, i.e. one who “practices” atheism, usually in a militant and proselytizing form), it is a matter of deciding how far one can go in committing oneself to a belief, and that to go beyond that which can be studied using logic and scientific method is mere speculation and fantasy. That seems a modest and reasonable position to hold, and most atheists, I suspect, stop at that point, address their questions to those matters that can be resolved using logic and scientific method, and go about their business without disturbing others. In doing so, however, they must accept that, in a sense, most findings are tentative unless they are tautologous and, therefore, trivial, as any finding is only valid until such time as it can be falsified. (Tautologies can be never be falsified of course, but who wants to know that black cats are black and bachelors are unmarried men?) Still, the findings seem solid enough to go on with for now.

Religious people, however, take the probably presumptuous step of suggesting that there is more to Being than what can be measured, tested, etc. - that there is something underpinning and transcending phenomena - and they think and talk about what this might be. And they read scriptures and listen to learned theologians and religious leaders. Perhaps they meditate and go on silent retreats and try various ways of disengaging themselves from undisciplined and unproductive ways of thinking and the things that generate negative habits. And so bodies of religious teaching and practice have emerged based on the missions of their founders or the sacred texts that have been enriched and expanded over long periods.

The beliefs and practices arrived at by these means can be quite varied and may contradict each other, as we know. And the foremost images of God in each religion can vary as well, both among the faiths and within them. The absolute transcendence of God in orthodox Sunni Islam, who governs all beings and all events by sheer will, varies greatly with the divine force of love and compassion experienced by the equally Islamic (but questionably orthodox) Sufi masters. The pantheon of greater and lesser Gods in Hinduism, all representing an aspect of being and activity, sit happily in a theology based on the supreme Godhead of Vishnu, the preserver, Brahma the creator, and Shiva the destroyer/transformer, all in harmony, as each of these functions is necessary to order and harmony on the cosmic scale. And, of course, we are familiar with the Christian triune Godhead of creator, sustainer and sanctifier/redeemer.

However, none of these varieties (excepting Mormonism, as I mentioned) conceive of God as someone up in the sky. They all, to a greater or lesser extent, envisage God as a something or someone that forms the very essence of our individual being, both a part of us and incomparably beyond us – the source not only of our essential selves, but of all phenomena. The Hindus, in my opinion, probably express this best with their reference to Brahman and Atman as the universal divine consciousness intersecting with the essence of all created beings, so that Brahman (God, if you like) is both infinitely transcendent and intimately present. This identification with transcendent and immanent divinity is common among mystics in all traditions, however – Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Judaic and Buddhist (not so much Theravada perhaps). Over the past century it has been given the name “The Perennial Philosophy”, referring to an esoteric strain within and across religious boundaries that reinterprets the exoteric teachings of institutional religion and is neither theistic nor atheistic in the conventional senses. Theists would see it as pantheistic; atheists as still a step too far, but not the theism that they usually have in their polemical sights. Liberal Christians refer to it as "panentheism".

It’s better, I think, to go beyond the polarities of atheism and theism, and, instead, to simply try and get to the heart of what people are trying to say about knowledge and faith. Setting up straw men as targets and knocking them over may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn’t really get us any further than where we are now, and we’re probably all a fair way short of where we could be and, perhaps, ought to be.

Try a little harder, notmyself. And read some history when you have time..... not the kind of history which slavers over all the bad things religious people have done, but the social history which tells how cohesive societies developed and what held them together.

I have, we are where we are in spite of religion, not because of it.

Not that I do complain about religion much but when the religious stop telling me how I ought to live my life I will.

Puzzles me a bit, this one, endure! You mean, like, you want to be told how to live your life?

Sorry - badly worded. I will stop my infrequent complaints about the religious when they stop telling me how I ought to live my life.

Clearly the atheists who tell people that their faith is an irrational superstition are only compassionate, caring individuals trying to save immortal souls from the hell fires reserved for those who fail to believe in and worship the flying spaghetti monster.

I'm glad to see that both AyG and notmyself believe in an immortal soul (your words, AyG). One has to wonder what is going to happen to yours.

A learned contribution, XSH, and I hope other posters will read it.

Clearly the atheists who tell people that their faith is an irrational superstition are only compassionate, caring individuals trying to save immortal souls from the hell fires reserved for those who fail to believe in and worship the flying spaghetti monster.

I'm glad to see that both AyG and notmyself believe in an immortal soul (your words, AyG). One has to wonder what is going to happen to yours.

A learned contribution, XSH, and I hope other posters will read it.

I'm glad to see that both AyG and notmyself believe in an immortal soul (your words, AyG).

It's called satire.

I see XHS's comments again and again and again from others and no matter how many times it is conclusively shown to be false, people still say the same mantra. I'll give a 101 on what atheism means.

Atheism is a rejection of the claim that a god exists, nothing else.

I'm glad to see that both AyG and notmyself believe in an immortal soul (your words, AyG).

It's called satire.

Yes, two can play at that game.

In more recent years, even their wish to identify themselves publicly as Christians (by wearing crosses, for example) has been increasingly challenged in the courts, as this public display of one's beliefs may offend others. The wearing of the hijab, however, (not burkha) has not generally been challenged outside France, and even there is only proscribed in certain sites, e.g. public schools. To western secularists, Islamic practice is often identified as cultural rather than religious, and hence is accepted. Christianity, to these people, is no longer a widespread cultural expression, but a body of doctrines to which an increasingly beleaguered and irrational minority subscribes.

You have amply demonstrated a clear double standard. Recently in the UK someone was sacked for refusing not to where a cross at work - In other words they had been co-opted into behaviour seen as accepted by western secularists, not very liberal at all in the old sense of the word. Islam in the west is not only accepted, but often it's so called cultural norms are imposed on everyone else, an example being Halal meat being sold unlabeled as such in supermarkets, never mind if you are a secularist who desires humane slaughter for the animals they eat.

Needless to say the double standard is even more starkly seen when the treatment of non-Muslims, or even minority Muslim sects is considered in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Actually, the U.S government survey 2012 on religious persecution by Country sadly but predictably exempts Saudi Arabia from having any action taken against it for it's religious intolerance.

Islam in the west is not only accepted, but often it's so called cultural norms are imposed on everyone else, an example being Halal meat being sold unlabeled as such in supermarkets, never mind if you are a secularist who desires humane slaughter for the animals they eat.

Also in schools. If it's chicken stew for lunch then it's Halal chicken and there is no option

Don't just blame hala/kosher rules for ill-treatment of food animals.

You can always eat pork, which is not affected by those rules.

And as regards chicken - when I was working in the UK many years ago, I had to build a new laboratory for one of the main chicken producers in the West Midlands. In addition to building the laboratory we did some refurbishment/upgrading of other buildings.

This meant that I went round many buildings, watching the chicken processing.

They are (or were) put up on a travelling overhead carriage, suspended by their necks, through a steam-line, then plucked by rubber mechanical fingers, then killed. I asked why they weren't killed first and was told that it made plucking much more difficult.

With regard to cattle and sheep being killed by halal method, rather than by 'humane' bolt - if done properly I understand that the throat cutting is quicker and less painful. But I don't know anyone who has been through both processes and compared them later.

Don't just blame hala/kosher rules for ill-treatment of food animals.

You can always eat pork, which is not affected by those rules.

And as regards chicken - when I was working in the UK many years ago, I had to build a new laboratory for one of the main chicken producers in the West Midlands. In addition to building the laboratory we did some refurbishment/upgrading of other buildings.

This meant that I went round many buildings, watching the chicken processing.

They are (or were) put up on a travelling overhead carriage, suspended by their necks, through a steam-line, then plucked by rubber mechanical fingers, then killed. I asked why they weren't killed first and was told that it made plucking much more difficult.

With regard to cattle and sheep being killed by halal method, rather than by 'humane' bolt - if done properly I understand that the throat cutting is quicker and less painful. But I don't know anyone who has been through both processes and compared them later.

why spoil an interesting Islam/Saudi bashing with boring facts in which nobody is interested?

Islam in the west is not only accepted, but often it's so called cultural norms are imposed on everyone else, an example being Halal meat being sold unlabeled as such in supermarkets, never mind if you are a secularist who desires humane slaughter for the animals they eat.

Also in schools. If it's chicken stew for lunch then it's Halal chicken and there is no option

that's terrible!