For all the whining about the "war on Christians" we hear from the fundie set, can you even imagine this show airing on American television? The Root of All Evil? is a two-part series airing in the U.K. on Channel 4 in which Richard Dawkins, the internationally known biologist and evolutionary theorist (his 1976 book The Selfish Gene was a worldwide best seller) delivers a thoroughly reasoned polemic against religion. Not a comparative study — a full-out attack on faith itself.
The show's website notes that,
though religions preach morality, peace and hope, in fact, says Dawkins, they bring intolerance, violence and destruction. The growth of extreme fundamentalism in so many religions across the world not only endangers humanity but, he argues, is in conflict with the trend over thousands of years of history for humanity to progress — to become more enlightened and more tolerant.
A provocative thesis, but not a crazy one. The historic record certainly bears him out. So why can't Dawkins get a platform on American television?
If Pat Robertson can go on television and call upon God to redirect hurricanes and bump off Supreme Court justices, and if presidential candidates have to kiss Jerry Falwell's ring to bolster their chances of getting elected, then why shouldn't religion be subject to criticism in mainstream venues? If archbishops can threaten people with excommunication if they vote for pro-choice candidates, while creationists work around the clock to dumb down our schools, then why shouldn't religion be given the same level of skepticism as any other aspect of public life?
When a head case like Fred Phelps uses his church as a platform to attack gays and pickets the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq (like Robertson and Falwell, Phelps believes every bad thing that happens to Americans shows God's wrath over our tolerance of homosexuality), we often hear the defense that they do not represent "true" Christianity. But how do we determine what is meant by "true" Christianity unless we are ready to examine it with a cold, skeptical eye? And will the answer to that question mean anything unless it is given by people who are ready to infuriate a great many believers?
Interesting questions. Unfortunately, I don't expect to see any of them even dealt with, much less answered, on American television.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RedTard
I'm not holding my breath on an explanation of why atheist left wing regimes have caused 5 of the 6 largest genocides in 20th century.
You liberal nutcases conveniently gloss over that FACT.
2 - Steven Hart
They have got a lot of catching up to do.
3 - RedTard
In sheer numbers I doubt it.
Religion certainly has a few black marks but for sheer efficieny and numbers you guys take the cake. I like that book referenced, 'the selfish gene'. Must be aimed at anyone who doesn't buy into the left wing propaganda. That's the seeds of the one party system and the death camps.
If someone doesn't swallow your leftist shit whole something is 'wrong' with them.
4 - Steven Hart
Well, Tard, that's yet another subject you don't know anything about. But next time you go on about the great genocides of the 20th century, try to remember that the Nazis went out of their way to mingle religion with government to consolidate their power. Hitler himself was raised a Catholic, as I recall. And I've often thought of Communism as a religion in its own right -- fervently embraced by its followers with a faith that transcended its actual lack of results. (A little like the Cult of Bush in that regard, eh?)
5 - Dave Nalle
The part of socialism which tends to reduce human beings to numbers and groups rather than individuals - thereby enabling genocide - isn't inherently incompatible with religion. It's the same mentality which treats heretics or non-believers as less than human in the eyes of those who have faith.
Dave
6 - RedTard
I hate history debates but here goes. Hitler on multiple occasions bashed the church. Government control freaks generally look down on the church because it is an alternate source of authority. Hitler may have paid lipservice now and again but he also referred to the church as a scourge and a plague that must be exterminated multiple times.
As for death counts it's alomst impossible to come to agreement on what qualifies. Of course, if you assume that every death caused by a government led by a religious person then you get one figure, if you look simply at people killed strictly because of their religion you get something quite different. I'm sure you would attempt to err on the side of the former and I the latter.
You speak of tolerance, and I will agree that you guys are tolerant in almost every respect. The one area, and a very dangerous one, where you are not is in the area political philosophy. You can tolerate anything except an opposing viewpoint.
Left wing regimes are notorious for squashing freedom of speech. The further left you go, the less right to dissent you have.
7 - Steven Hart
I can understand why you hate history debates, Tard, but here's the real problem: It's so much fun to bait you, and you always rise so quickly to the bait with maximum volume and minimal thought, that I'm afraid other commenters are going to miss the fact that everything you've written is beside the point where my post is concerned.
That point being: If religious leaders inject themselves into political debates solely on the basis of religious doctrine, then why should religion be off-limits to criticism and questioning?
I pose the question and instantly you start frothing at the mouth about genocide. It's funny to watch, Tard, but it's also a waste of time. Vaya con Dios, Tard. Or not, as the case may be.
8 - Bliffle
The catholic church supported Hitler and the nazis. Can hardly be contested. Even after 1945 the church provided aPapal Highway for nazis to escape the allies. In 1955 they helped Joseph Mengele return to Germany secretly to pickup his new wife. And, of course, we all know about Pope Pius' support of Hitler.
Most mad political movements like naziism and communism use the same human proclivity toward brainless submission to authority that religions depend on. Why else would people, under the sway of such systems, surrender their own judgement and embark on killing sprees?
9 - Steven Hart
The part of socialism which tends to reduce human beings to numbers and groups rather than individuals - thereby enabling genocide - isn't inherently incompatible with religion. It's the same mentality which treats heretics or non-believers as less than human in the eyes of those who have faith.
True, and no need to stop there. The sociopathic tendency can be found in any political extreme.
But Tard's ranting and raving obscured the main question, which is why religion should be thrust into politics and public life and yet be exempt from criticism.
10 - RedTard
"The historic record certainly bears him out."
You brought up historic record in your article. If truth and facts take the edge off your hateful rhetoric, don't blame me. From the get go you start off labelling 'fundies' then claiming that historic records would indict them.
Here's the historic truth for you. The evil, deadly much publicized spanish inquisition put to death a whole whopping 30,000 people. The churches meticulous records only show about 2500 death sentences, of course we know they're evil so we've multiplied that times 10-15 for good measure. How many times would that have to occur to make up for just one left wing political purge?
It's your propaganda that's dangerous, I point that out and you immediately drop your pretend evidence and switch to personal attacks.
11 - SteveS
Hitler's genocide targeted Jews. The Jewish faith is exactly that, a faith, a religion, it's not a race.
A religion was targeted, because Hitler did not want Jews to intermingle with Christians.
The whole thing is steeped in religion. It shouldn't matter whether Hitler worshipped Jesus or was an athiest or whatnot, the whole thing is because of religion.
People in Germany were losing faith, Hitler preyed upon that to demonize Jews. So whether Hitler committed genocide because of HIS religious beliefs or lack thereof, is not as noteworthy as the fact that the entire disaster was made possible by manipulating other people's religious beliefs.
It doesn't mean religion is to blame, but both sides must concede that religion played a significant part.
12 - SteveS
I enjoyed this post and agree with you.
One good example is Navy Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt who was charged by the Navy for trying to proselytize non-Evangelical Christians
He compared himself in an interview to Abdur Rahman, the Afghani man who was almost executed for being a Christian.
And right wing, religious sites ran with the story, portraying a reprimand from the Navy as being the equivalent of a Taliban like execution.
They've even made it so a business saying 'Happy Holidays' is attacking Christianity. "It's war on Christmas!" Bill O'Reilly will tell you.
At a "War On Christians" conference, Tom DeLay, speaking about his upcoming corruption trial, said, "Sides are being chosen, and the future of man hangs in the balance!"
You see, Tom DeLay is God's Special Martyr™ now.
It's too bad that moderate and mainstream Christians, don't speak up more and take back their faith from abuse and misuse.
13 - SteveS
I think for clarification, it should be said that religion is not to blame for the worlds ills, but misuse of religion.
Certainly Muslims will say that the Taliban like branch of it's faith is not representative of Islam, etc.
The same goes for Christians who say that Fred Phelps does not represent their faith.
It's not that religion is the problem, it's the misuse of religion. Perhaps in that premise, one can find common ground with someone who disagrees.
When you quote the shows website in your post, you make mention of the growth of extreme fundamentalism. That is where a corruption of the faith seems to come about.
Like Hitler, it just takes an abuse of the religion to turn it into an object of oppression and terror.
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Steve S.,
Hitler targetted a race of people - mine. It is important to understand that this was Nazi philosophy/religion. We Jews are not a race, we are a nation and a religion, both at the same time. But the Nazis saw us as a contaminating element in mankind, an element that needed to be eliminated,
That the Nazis exploited Christian Jew-hatred to accomplish their goals is irrelevant to what they intended for us. What they intended for Christians after we Jews had been destroyed must remain an academic question, but the intent was relatively clear.
After exploiting the help of the Vatican, the Vatican was to be destroyed as a competing entity, both religious and political. The Slavs were to be enslaved, along with blacks. I do not know what the Nazi attitude would have been towards South Asians, who can legitimately claim the name "Aryan". Racially, they traced their own roots to Tibet.
I strongly suspect that had the Nazis won, there would have eventually been a war between them and the Japanese
15 - SteveS
Ruvy, I'm not sure we are in disagreement. I mentioned that Jews were targeted, they aren't a race but a religion. You agreed with that.
Hitler exploited religion and preyed upon the German Christians fears.
I read your comment, but am not sure if you are commenting in disagreement or correction or just additional info. I agree with everything you said.
16 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Steve S.,
In writing what I did, I wanted you to see the Nazis on their own terms, not on mine or yours. Too many people super-impose their own ideas on whom and what the Nazis were, and can get away with it. Hitler and Goebbels are not around to defend and clarify their ideas, are they?
I'm not saying that is what you were doing, but I was trying to dissuade you from doing so.
Part of the Nazi religion was the elimination of inferior (blacks, in their eyes) or contaminating (Jews, in their eyes) races. So their acts, despicable and horrific as they were, were not an abuse of their religion but a fulfillment of it.
The Nazis were not a small variant of a different religion. They plumbed evil and claimed it for themselves. In this they differ from the Taliban, the Salafis or Wahhabis in Islam, or the Neturei Karta in Judaism, all of whom can be argued to be abusing their respective religion.
The latter groups are all rebel sects within larger religions that do not necessarily represent the normative faith, though I have to admit it appears that the Salafis, Wahhabis and Taliban may have temporarily hijacked Islam. I can only hope that the hijacking can be reversed.
17 - Michael J. West
It's nice to see RedTard taking the usual path of pretending that Hitler was even remotely leftwing.
18 - Josh
Hitler seized power during a time in which Germany was most susceptible to his manipulation -- after the Treaty of Versailles, through which the whole nation was humiliated, impovershed, and up to their necks in war-debt.
What's the quickest way to unite a nation? Present a common enemy. Jews just happened to be a vulnerable, highly visible minority; just in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
It's a shame that Hitler was able to exploit the long pervading anti-Semitism in Europe, but let's not be naive. Religion had nothing to do with it. After he was done with the Jews, it would be the Catholics, then the Protestants. Anything that got in the way of loyalty to the State.
And as for the Vatican helping out Hitler. Show me some actual evidence or I'm going to call it for what it is -- bullshit. It's true that the Pope didn't speak out as much as he could against Hitler. But, could that be because Hitler could exterminate Catholics just as easily as Jews?
Ruvy, there definitely would have been a war with the Japanese, no question.
19 - Michael J. West
What's the quickest way to unite a nation? Present a common enemy. Jews just happened to be a vulnerable, highly visible minority; just in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
That's a nice interpretation but it's not true. All evidence shows that Hitler genuinely believed everything he said about the Jews--in private conversations, he even blamed the styles of orchestra conductors he didn't like on Jewish influence. And he felt that way long before World War II. Long before World War I, in fact.
It's true that the Pope didn't speak out as much as he could against Hitler. But, could that be because Hitler could exterminate Catholics just as easily as Jews?
If that was the reason the Pope didn't speak out as much as he could have--should have--against Hitler...well, let's just say that that's a pitiful excuse for someone who's supposed to be a holy man.
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Josh, you are flat out wrong in your analysis. Reread what I wrote in comments 14 and 16. Nazism was a religion/philosophy on its own and it was based on its definition of race. Hitler was not merely manipulating German Jew-hatred as did some American southern governors years back with respect to blacks. He believed every word he said. His actions had everything to do with religion.
21 - Michael J. West
Ruvy, it's always nice to see that some of us actually have a working knowledge of history before we speak about it.
22 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Oh, while I'm here, Redtard.
The damage of the Inquisition was not the number of deaths done, but the expulsions of huge numbers of people from their homes, the persecution of thousands others for generations on the Iberian peninsula and elswhere. For generations, wherever the Catholics showed up with a sword and a Bible, Jews had to flee. That is also historical fact.
23 - Michael J. West
Left wing regimes are notorious for squashing freedom of speech. The further left you go, the less right to dissent you have.
The political spectrum is a lot like the color spectrum in that it's not a straight line: it's a circle.
The further left you go, the closer you get to the far right. And vice versa.
24 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Thank you, Mike.
25 - Michael J. West
You're welcome, Ruvy. Of course, it was only half about you. The other half was me glorifying myself. :-)