All religions are dangerous?

[_marg]

I do understand your point that unquestioning allegiance to a central authority is dangerous! You will get no dispute from me on that. I understand that to replace reason with fanciful notions that can be harmful happens. I just am seriously having a great deal of difficulty understanding how Shintoism (that does not stress beliefs) that is no longer in part of a political rule of one man can be considered dangerous today.

My previous post mentioned religion being a communication system. So religion as a teaching system has an affect on how people view the world and critically think. By teaching that it is the norm to accept and believe in extraordinary claims absent evidence despite those claims being contrary to how the actual world operates and is observed, it teaches that poor critical thinking is acceptable. And that teaches an attitude, a way of thinking, which is the antithesis of good critical thinking which requires evidence and reasoning to match extraordinary claims.

For many religious claims, followers, if they were good critical thinkers should reject the claims. Yet typically those who have received early indoctrination, despite intelligence., and being able to critically evalute well other issues outside their religion are not able to objectively be critical about their religious beliefs. If religions teach a group think mentality of subservience to religious authority, an attitude of unquestioning obedience, followers are easily manipulated and controlled by the authority. That can be a bad thing. So religions as a teaching system communicates to followers to an extent poor critical thinking which may carry over into area outside religion.

Now shintoism has been a communication system which has encouraged followers to be excessive obedient, as you pointed out (I believe) it is a contributing factor to Japanese discouraging the individual in favor of the group. That excessive obedience was observed in the military, Nanking massacre, Kamikazi pilots. In addition Shintoism has encouraged an attitude of Japanese superiority, Japanese decendents of god. The Japanese were ruthless in war. Fight until death, not give up, to the extreme. If the Japanese gov't would have surrendered during WW2 another atomic bomb would need not have been necessary to drop, but given their ruthlessness the refusal to ever give up, extreme measures were used to end the war. So shintoism contributed to obedience to authority and an attitude of it being an honor to sacrifice the individual for the goals of the group in war, and that was dangerous to the world when the Japanese used aggression against others.

[_antishock8]

Hi Marg,

Thanks for the insight reference Shintoism. I think you make a pretty good case for causality.

[Guest]

GoodK,

I have actually never observed or participated in a debate between a believer and non-believer where Stalin, Pol Pot, or Hitler wasn't brought up as a case against atheism

I'm not gonna go with the Hitler reference because it's disputed by some, and there is no need, because you have provided the instances of Pol Pot and Stalin - who, unless it's disputed - were clearly atheists.

I also hate those instances being bought up as a 'generalising' tool. It annoys me to death. Check ALL the threads I've been involved in on MAD where I've said just that. I agree that it's nonsense to bring those examples up as some kind of 'indication' of general atheistic behaviour.

But in THIS thread, it isn't the religious who are trying to generalise the non-religious. It is the non-religious who are trying to generalise the religious! Why is that not just as 'silly'?
For some reason, you don't see that as 'wrong'. And yet you see the above comparisons as 'wrong'.
Whereas I see BOTH instances of generalisation as 'wrong'.

(I'm not suggesting we go without the literature, artwork, or architecture inspired or done in the name of religion)

Well, good. Then I hope that I don't have to hear the argument again that religion is dangerous because it 'put some energy into building some shrines!'.
That's not aimed at you. That's aimed at someone else - who considered that a decent argument.

Dawkins era? Ha. I would call this the Pat Robertson era before I called it that.

Right - first off, of course I was using the phrase 'Dawkins era' to make a point. I don't literally think 'Dawkins' has taken over the thinking of the world or something like that. Nor am I trying to suggest that he is de facto wrong, nor that people just believe him without thinking.
I am a HUGE Dawkins fan in most respects. But I DO think his approach to critising religion is a little skewed.

As far as calling it the Pat Robertson era, that might well be because you live in the US of A. I don't feel like I live in a 'Pat Robertson' era, because I don't live where you do. You've got a few more fundies your way. Which probably explains why some of you are so hot under the collar when it comes to religion.
I live in a different part of the world, where we essentially have NO Pat Robertsons. And yet religion is still distinctly alive. We still have an Anglican church (as well as all kinds of other religions). We still have the archbishop - who leads that church. And it still has a sizable membership.

But it bears little relation to a fundamentalist mentality. As I have been saying over and over, it has become a religion of ritual and community. The religion doesn't affect the running of government. It strictly isn't allowed to. Members believe whatever the heck they want. To suggest that the membership as a whole are in some way 'non-critical thinkers' just because they still attend is PREPOSTEROUS. The leadership don't and can't shove anything down anybodies throat. It is there as a spiritual sense of community. That is it. And there is nothing harmful or dangerous in that. In fact, I'd say it's a distinct positive.

Don't you think the world would be a better or safer place to live in if there was no literal belief in any of our currently established religions?

Hmmmmm - interesting question.
I think that some people are 'worse' people if they are forced into the conclusion that there is no supernatural, no afterlife etc. I think some people NEED and WANT that sense of the world beyond this one. I think it actually HELPS them - as long as it is kept in perspective.

But of course, that is different to literally believing every single truth being shoved upon them by their religion. The main thing I am against is dogma and fundamentalism. The idea that you MUST believe this or that. Or these truths 'cannot be questioned'.
I want to live in a world where nothing is unquestionable.

And that includes the question: Would ridding the world of religion be a GOOD thing!

Where we are always allowed to use our brains and our hearts. I don't particular care if people want to believe or 'hope' in the Supernatural - as long as that isn't part of some undue moral or social 'pressure' placed upon them by their environment.
I actually think it is a natural tendency in some to believe in the supernatural. Even if you made all religion magically disappear tomorrow, some people would still reach for it.

I'm not convinced in the slightest that a completely non-religious world would be a significantly better world. We'd just find other reasons to go doing bad, silly things. (And that's where - even though you might disapprove, I'm going to have to reference Stalin and Pol Pot. They didn't have religious reasoning to do what they did. But they did it anyway. Ridding the world of religion will not rid the world of reasons to do s****y things, and may well be taking away something from many people that actually makes them BETTER people.)

I don't want religion gone. I want fundamentalism and dogmatism gone.

I imagine it was hardwired into your brain, as it is in the rest of us (except Arkansas).

Heh - liked the Arkansas bit :)

Yes - I believe that the very basis of all moral codes mankind have ever come up with are derived eventually from evolutionary programming. And as you rightly imply, the 'notion' to not have sex with a sibling makes evolutionary sense.
The notion of 'moral behavior' towards other people - as Dawkins himself explains - can be very clearly and logically explained as an evolutionary advantage based on 'tit-for-tat' behaviours, that - when followed - increase the survivability of the entire group ahead of a 'selfish' behaviour, where each member of the group is only looking out for their own interests.

GoodK, if you are under the impression that I have been arguing that atheists are going to naturally lead to nihilism, or selfishness, or 'immoral behaviour', then you have taken my little bit of 'devils advocate' a little too seriously! :)
The reason we all have a tendency towards SOME form of moral behaviour has NOTHING TO DO with the ideology placed upon us. It's because it's built into ALL of us - as human beings.

This is not to deny that all of us are able to 'sway' to some extent. Just as we are all slightly different in all kinds of ways, we all have different ideas on morals. And ideologies CAN have more or less of an influence...

I didn't say it didn't make sense, it makes sense in that most people understand what the word atheism means. But to echoe Sam Harris, I don't think we need the word atheist.

Yes, let's get rid of it. I don't think we should use it at all, I do not feel compelled to label myself anything. (some people do, perhaps you are one of them http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... ew_ath.php)

I'm sorry GoodK - but this comes across to me as:

I want to place labels on other people, but I don't want them placing labels on me

I'm not with you on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_nihilism wrote:
This position has been attributed to philosophers such as Parmenides, Buddha, Advaita Vedantins, and Immanuel Kant (according to some interpretations of his transcendental idealism).

Ermm - GoodK - you just linked to Metaphysical nihilism!
I wasn't talking about metaphysical nihilism. I was talking about just plain 'nihilism':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

i.e. nihilism in relation to ethics.

'Metaphysical nihilism' and 'nihilism' are two different things, that deal with two completely different subjects.

I think the misunderstanding may be in your reading of my words.

Hmmm - ok. If you say so :)

atheism does not lead to nihilism

Why isn't this an instance of you misunderstanding me? I never said that atheism 'leads' to nihilism, and I'd already made that VERY clear before we even started this exchange.

I see how you are forcing this connection between the two

I'm not FORCING any connection.
I'm saying that an atheist can be a nihilist, just as a Englishman can be a cricketer.

It COULD be suggested that a religious person could be a nihilist, but I'd suggest that that would be similar to saying that an eskimo could be a cricketer. My response would be 'Hmm - really?'

As much as I love wikipedia

Well, I felt using wikipedia would be fine in this case, because I didn't feel the definition of 'nihilism' is actually that contentious.

I don't see any reason to infer that believing that there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator is a nihilistic requirement.

Right. Except that it's right there in the reference I provided.
Let me get this straight - are you saying that the reference I provided is just plain wrong?

I don't, I am trying to show you why atheism is completely different from nihilism

I already know that atheism is different to nihilism. Just as I know that the designator 'English' is different to the designator 'Cricketer'. And yet a person can be both at the same time.

For all this talk about me misunderstanding you, I can't help but think it is you that is actually misunderstanding me.

I disagree that it fulfills a basic requirement of nihilism. Like I said, you will need a better source than a citation-less passage from wikipedia

What? You are seriously suggesting that the 'explanation' of nihilism I referenced is - in fact - wrong? Are you serious about that?

I know I don't need to tell you this, but,
Not believing in God, or a religion, does not mean you also believe that there must be no creator, no afterlife, in fact it doesn't mean anything except, "I've listened to your pitch Mr. Christian, or Mr. Jew, or Mr. Buddhist, and I find it ridiculous. I don't know if there is such a thing as reincarnation, astral planes, or ESP, or if we were created as some sort of experiment on an alien supercomputer, but what I do know is I don't believe your fairy tale."

Yes - I do know that.
I know you don't accept the explanation of what 'nihilism' is I've provided (I'm still not sure why...), but if you check that explanation, it doesn't say the person MUST believe there is CERTAINLY no "higher ruler or creator". It just says that the person will find "there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator".

but either you are implying that an atheist is more inclined to be a nihilist

I'm saying it'd be pretty damn weird for a religious person TO BE a nihilist.
You tried to dispute that with a reference to metaphysical nihilism, which is something completely different!

and a Christian COULD become a nihilist

Please explain how a Christian is supposed to sensibly believe that:

* there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator,
* a "true morality" does not exist, and
* objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.

Umm.. I'm confused. What does "range of belief" even mean?

It means that - as an atheist - there'd be certain things that would make no sense if I were to claim to believe them. I'd have to either not really be an atheist, or I'd actually not 'really' believe what I claimed to believe.

Loving your neighbor - you are really talking about empathy and compassion for others, and this is not a uniquely human phenomenon, nor is it a belief we have to adopt.

Wasn't I very clear on the fact that an atheist CAN 'love their neighbour'?
What I said was: They can't believe that it is a divine commandment to love their neighbour. That belief is 'out of my belief range' - as an atheist.

Nihilism - however - isn't. In fact, it is distinctly within my 'belief range'.

An atheist rejects being religious

...didn't you just add something to the defintion of 'atheism' here? Where in the definition of atheism is 'religion' mentioned?

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

And here:

Well, yes - the word religion was mentioned in that reference. (But it's a wiki reference - didn't you just say those aren't 'good enough'? Hmm - but anyway...)

In that reference, it says:

Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.

So you stated that an atheist 'rejects being religious'. And yet in the very reference you provided, it states the opposite. It says that some religious philosophies are distinctly non-theistic!

[_Ren]

marg,

I agree with anti-shock that you've actually made very good arguments. You've produced some solid posts.

Part of my entire argument has been that dogmatism and fundamentalism is on the wane in religion - across the world. There are still pockets of fundamentalism that doggedly stick around, but that doesn't counter the examples where it is naturally fading away -without the people outside the religion declaring the entire religion 'dangerous', and wanting it to die.

I accept that if you look at all kinds of religions, you will find dogmatism and fundamentalism in their past. But compare the past with today, and look at the overall direction of movement - that's what I'm saying.

[_JAK]

I do understand your point that unquestioning allegiance to a central authority is dangerous! You will get no dispute from me on that. I understand that to replace reason with fanciful notions that can be harmful happens. I just am seriously having a great deal of difficulty understanding how Shintoism (that does not stress beliefs) that is no longer in part of a political rule of one man can be considered dangerous today.

My previous post mentioned religion being a communication system. So religion as a teaching system has an affect on how people view the world and critically think. By teaching that it is the norm to accept and believe in extraordinary claims absent evidence despite those claims being contrary to how the actual world operates and is observed, it teaches that poor critical thinking is acceptable. And that teaches an attitude, a way of thinking, which is the antithesis of good critical thinking which requires evidence and reasoning to match extraordinary claims.

For many religious claims, followers, if they were good critical thinkers should reject the claims. Yet typically those who have received early indoctrination, despite intelligence., and being able to critically evalute well other issues outside their religion are not able to objectively be critical about their religious beliefs. If religions teach a group think mentality of subservience to religious authority, an attitude of unquestioning obedience, followers are easily manipulated and controlled by the authority. That can be a bad thing. So religions as a teaching system communicates to followers to an extent poor critical thinking which may carry over into area outside religion.

Now shintoism has been a communication system which has encouraged followers to be excessive obedient, as you pointed out (I believe) it is a contributing factor to Japanese discouraging the individual in favor of the group. That excessive obedience was observed in the military, Nanking massacre, Kamikazi pilots. In addition Shintoism has encouraged an attitude of Japanese superiority, Japanese decendents of god. The Japanese were ruthless in war. Fight until death, not give up, to the extreme. If the Japanese gov't would have surrendered during WW2 another atomic bomb would need not have been necessary to drop, but given their ruthlessness the refusal to ever give up, extreme measures were used to end the war. So shintoism contributed to obedience to authority and an attitude of it being an honor to sacrifice the individual for the goals of the group in war, and that was dangerous to the world when the Japanese used aggression against others.

One of the things about this discussion is the desperate search to find somewhere one, just one religion, which makes no statement, takes no position, holds up no view (absent evidence) which can be called a religion.

Such a find would allow cheers of Ah Ha here is a religion which says nothing about anything, therefore, therefore we have won.

The effort to make Shintoism that religion is failing as a result in part of marg’s analysis and her previous post on Shintoism.

It would appear that absent any refutation, there is no disagreement that such world religions as Christianity and Islam cannot be held up as religions based on reason and evidence.

marg observe (and documented), “Now shintoism has been a communication system which has encouraged followers to be excessive obedient, as you pointed out (I believe) it is a contributing factor to Japanese discouraging the individual in favor of the group.”

marg also stated: “In addition Shintoism has encouraged an attitude of Japanese superiority, Japanese descendents of god.”

Of course this is a doctrine/dogma which is religious. Any claim for god or gods is doctrine/dogma which is religious.

marg opened with this: “So religion as a teaching system has an affect on how people view the world and critically think. By teaching that it is the norm to accept and believe in extraordinary claims absent evidence despite those claims being contrary to how the actual world operates and is observed, it teaches that poor critical thinking is acceptable. And that teaches an attitude, a way of thinking, which is the antithesis of good critical thinking which requires evidence and reasoning to match extraordinary claims.”

All this reference to the fine post is to underscore the importance of the points made and to underscore that Shintoism is not a religion which makes no statement, takes no position, holds up no view (absent evidence).

In addition, no one has addressed the great harms resulting from application of religious dogma on the many websites {page 2 and others} of this discussion which were listed. And those who have attacked the web as source have also used the web as source.

marg recognizes in her statement: “So shintoism contributed to obedience to authority and an attitude of it being an honor to sacrifice the individual for the goals of the group in war, and that was dangerous to the world when the Japanese used aggression against others.”

There has been no refutation to:

“Truth by assertion” is unreliable. Religions rely on “truth by assertion.”

Evidence presented and evidence available not presented demonstrate the validity and reliability of this two-pronged analysis.

Moniker wrote:
I just am seriously having a great deal of difficulty understanding how Shintoism (that does not stress beliefs) that is no longer in part of a political rule of one man can be considered dangerous today.

The fact that a particular danger may now be mitigated or may no longer exist as a part of “a political rule” does not minimize the facts marg has established. Hitler no longer lives to continue his extermination of Jews. But, Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Pope Pius XII was in power (head of the RCC) at the time Hitler was systematically killing Jews, and Pope Pius XII remained silent in the face of the Holocaust.

There we have well documented the dangers of religion not only from Hitler’s perception of religion, but also from the official response of the Roman Catholic Church to Hitler's killing of Jews.

Historically, the “dangers of religion” have been most extensively documented and are being documented today. Adolf Hitler lived from 1998 to 1945. It has been less than 100 years since those atrocities clearly connected with religion were committed. Both Hitler, the aggressor, and by the Roman Catholic Church, which stood in silence as the Holocaust took place, demonstrate the culpability of religion in dangers of religion.

In many Christian organizations, doctrine/dogma is used to bilk billions of dollars out of individuals, transferring those dollars to a larger religious organization with promises which rely on truth by assertion.

The attempt to find that one religion which says nothing and relies on no doctrine/dogma fails if it relies on Shintoism.

JAK

[_antishock8]

marg,

I agree with anti-shock that you've actually made very good arguments. You've produced some solid posts.

Part of my entire argument has been that dogmatism and fundamentalism is on the wane in religion - across the world. There are still pockets of fundamentalism that doggedly stick around, but that doesn't counter the examples where it is naturally fading away -without the people outside the religion declaring the entire religion 'dangerous', and wanting it to die.

I accept that if you look at all kinds of religions, you will find dogmatism and fundamentalism in their past. But compare the past with today, and look at the overall direction of movement - that's what I'm saying.

I wish that were the case, but I think clerical fascism, vis a vis Islam, is on the rise. It doesn't take a genius to see that Wahhabism and Salafism is consolidating power throughout the Islamic world, funded by Saudi petro-dollars. It preaches intolerance, hatred, and self-righteous violent Jihad. And it's growing fast, infiltrated academia and government, and has successfully cowed public opinion into a suicidal sense of absolute tolerance.

I would bother to post links, but alas there's no point. You either see what's going on or you don't. You either support progressivism and equality or you don't. There's not really much middle ground with this particular situation in which we find ourselves, and there's no going back, either. It has to be confronted and not tolerated or we risk submission... Which is the point, and has always been since Muhammed heard the voice of Gabriel.

[_Ren]

I wish that were the case, but I think clerical fascism, vis a vis Islam, is on the rise.

Certainly the Islamic world is a clear example of where plenty of fundamentalism reigns.
But 'increasing'? You're saying that the Islamic world - as a whole - was 'less' fundamentalistic in nature in the past?

It doesn't take a genius to see that Wahhabism and Salafism is consolidating power throughout the Islamic world, funded by Saudi petro-dollars. It preaches intolerance, hatred, and self-righteous violent Jihad. And it's growing fast, infiltrated academia and government, and has successfully cowed public opinion into a suicidal sense of absolute tolerance.

Now, if your saying that the same, existing fundamentalist influence can be seen to be 'spreading' to some extent, then yes - I accept that.
I am against such a spread, and I don't want it to happen.

But let me tell you what won't stop that spread - telling all Church of England members, for example, that they are part of a 'dangerous' organisation. It not only will not help - but you're just gonna get laughed at.

If the archbishop were to declare that God has told him that a holy war needs to be waged against anybody, and that regardless of what the Prime Minister says, all believers must join in the fight, he would not only be laughed off the pulpit by his own membership, but he'd very quickly lose his position.
That kind of religious organisation and attitude HAS to be distinguished from suicide bombers. If it can't, then I simply can't believe the issue is being taken seriously.

I would bother to post links, but alas there's no point. You either see what's going on or you don't. You either support progressivism and equality or you don't.

What makes you think I don't support progressivism and equality?
I want fundamentalism and dogmatism wiped off the face of this planet!

There's not really much middle ground with this particular situation in which we find ourselves, and there's no going back, either.

We BOTH believe in drawing battle-lines mate.

[_JAK]

marg,

I agree with anti-shock that you've actually made very good arguments. You've produced some solid posts.

Part of my entire argument has been that dogmatism and fundamentalism is on the wane in religion - across the world. There are still pockets of fundamentalism that doggedly stick around, but that doesn't counter the examples where it is naturally fading away -without the people outside the religion declaring the entire religion 'dangerous', and wanting it to die.

I accept that if you look at all kinds of religions, you will find dogmatism and fundamentalism in their past. But compare the past with today, and look at the overall direction of movement - that's what I'm saying.

ROP,

Even if “dogmatism and fundamentalism is on the wane in religion - across the world,” that in no way mitigates this thousands of years of history regarding both.

What evidence can you offer for this claim? Fundamentalist religious groups are now pursuing peoples in Africa and other Third World countries to convert them to their brand of Christian fundamentalism. They send missionaries on tour to convert people who are without education and without access to education.

I’m skeptical of your position. Is it even on “the wane” in the USA? Consider the pandering required by politicians to the religious right as they seek the nomination of their party.

I know of no politician which has not and does not make an affirmative statement about his/her religion. Certainly G.W. Bush represented himself as a fundamentalist Christian as he identified with Jerry Falwell (now dead) and James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and other fundamentalist Christians.

If your view is correct, it is so recent as to be merely post G.W.Bush. John McCain has appeared at right-wing fundamentalist rallies to pursue their support for him. And given the choice of John McCain and perhaps Barack Obama, the religious right will support John McCain.

You may be correct, ROP. My questions are from a skeptical view regarding your statement.

Again, what evidence makes you feel that “dogmatism and fundamentalism is on the wane in religion - across the world”?

JAK

[_Ren]

Before I go further, I'd like to try and have a little "Kumbaya" moment here...
...oh - oops. That's a bit too religious isn't it :) Let's just say an 'ideologically-neutral' moment of peace and reflection!

...guys, no matter what the disagreements we have here, the problems of the world aren't going to be solved on this message board. The 'conclusions' we come to (or don't come to) here aren't going to move the 'corridors of power'. Of course the answers to the future are in our hands as individuals. But we've all gotta accept that we each have to come to the conclusions we see as the 'best' ones.

There's probably been mis-communications on all sides here. And I'm sure I'm as to blame as anybody else.


Just consider the above a small attempt to diffuse some of the tension here. Will it work? Probably not, but oh well :D

Again, what evidence makes you feel that “dogmatism and fundamentalism is on the wane in religion - across the world”?

Before we go into big, lengthy back and forths, let me be VERY clear on what I meant.

I don't mean that all religions - universally, across the world - are becoming less fundementalistic and less dogmatic. Of COURSE that is not true. You have all accurately cited clear examples of places in this world where it sticks around, and worrying enough is spreading to some degree.

What I meant was:
In most - if not all - areas of the world, you can find religions and religious movements that are becoming less 'dogmatic' and less 'fundemetnalistic' - on their own steam. Even in America, you can find them - check the examples I provided earlier of religious movements are specifically SAY that you are NOT to swallow the Bible as dogma.


Look OK - here's a more solid version of what I am claiming.

Take any snapshot of the world-wide religious view of any point in the past (And I mean ALL religions everywhere - not just USA, middle-east etc.) Construct some 'figure' for how much 'fundamentalism' and 'dogmatism' exists as a sum total world-wide.

Now create a snapshot of today and do the same thing. (And I mean ALL religions everywhere - not just USA, middle-east etc.) Construct some 'figure' for how much 'fundamentalism' and 'dogmatism' exists as a sum total world-wide today.

Now compare the two figures.
My assertion is that the figure from the past would ALWAYS be lower than the figure from the present

[_dartagnan]

Even if “dogmatism and fundamentalism is on the wane in religion - across the world,” that in no way mitigates this thousands of years of history regarding both.

It completely destroys your thesis because the anecdotes you refer to are natural social phenomena that have nothing to do with religion. In fact, if Christendom wasn't using Christianity as a symbol for so long, logic dictates that the "crusades" would have taken place the moment the state had been attacked.

What evidence can you offer for this claim? Fundamentalist religious groups are now pursuing peoples in Africa and other Third World countries to convert them to their brand of Christian fundamentalism. They send missionaries on tour to convert people who are without education and without access to education.

You have no point here. Christians moving into Africa doesn't prove religion is dangerous in any sense, in fact it will give them hope for education, as organized well funded religion usually offers schooling where the governments fail. If you're trying to suggest their lack of education has everything to do with their conversions, then you have no case there either. Scientists convert to Christainity all the time.

Is it even on “the wane” in the USA? Consider the pandering required by politicians to the religious right as they seek the nomination of their party.

That's called politic. We live in a democracy in case you didn't know. If most of the country were atheistic then the politicians would be pandering to the atheist left to get elected. How in the hell can you blame religious people for exercising their right to get involved in politics in their own country? You would take that right away from them if you had the power, which makes you far more dangerous than any of them. What you haven't done is demonstrate a "danger." You keep ignoring refutations because you can't answer questions and deal with contradicting evidence.

Christians can argue that secularism presents just as much of a danger but both sides would simply be "asserting truth," not proving it. That includes you too.

I know of no politician which has not and does not make an affirmative statement about his/her religion.

So what?

My questions are from a skeptical view regarding your statement.

Please don't confuse your stupidity with "skeptisim." You thrive off of ignorance and you refuse to be educated. You cling to the most basic of ingredients that feed bigotry - you see only black and white, you create an atmosphere of fear, you spread and demonstrate ignorance - and you are "skeptical" of anything that stands in their way.

Again, what evidence makes you feel that “dogmatism and fundamentalism is on the wane in religion - across the world”?

You simply don't know much. If you read Evangelical journals over the past thirty years you'd have a clue. The trend is very clear. Liberal theology is making a strong move and is increasing in popularity over the past century. Some of the strongest critics of fundamentalism are now Evangelicals themselves.

ROP

Certainly the Islamic world is a clear example of where plenty of fundamentalism reigns.
But 'increasing'? You're saying that the Islamic world - as a whole - was 'less' fundamentalistic in nature in the past

Exactly true. Islamic powers had been relatively calm until the creation of Israel and the US intrusion into the Middle-East. The Islamic insanity over the past decade has been due mainly to politics.

We're still waiting for JAK to respond to the fact that most suicide bombers don't use religion as an excuse. In fact they are Marxist secularists. I guess he didn't know that, which is why he hasn't responded to this in days. Speaking in ignorance can become an embarrasing endeavor. JAK is making a hobby from it.