No doubt.

As for attacking faith with reason – then I’m all for that but I believe it should be kept separate from 9/11.

Well I’m sorry, but I have no particular desire to be blown to bits.

To use 9/11 to attack all Muslims . . .

I am suggesting that we attack the vile religion of Islam in the context of an attack on all forms of unreason.

. . . is like attacking all atheists over WWII because some claim Hitler was an atheist.

Hitler was a Catholic who probably thought he was fulfilling the biblical prophecy of the final destruction of the Jews.

I would rather challenge someone on their individual beliefs and as laid out in their holy text . . .

Well that’s more or less where I started out – by questioning why so few were prepared to make the link between specific Islamic doctrines and 9/11. I can’t win here. Whenever I advance my abstract metaphysical arguments, I get, “Show us the evidence!” (which is always amusing if it comes from a religious believer). So I dig up some evidence, and I get, “Nah, nah, nah!”

” a survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that far fewer Muslims now regard suicide bombing as “justified” than five years ago. The sharpest drop was in Lebanon (where support for bombings fell to 34 percent from 74 percent in 2002), but the trend was also evident in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jordan, and Indonesia. ”

No doubt there are lots of polls where American and British people give a worrying high opinion of things that we won’t agree on – but that doesn’t translate it taking take as face value as polls can be contradictory and occassionally biased.

In terms of combating 9/11 then we should focus on Al-Qaeda as well as the political situations involved around this like the Israel-Palestine conflict. You are right in that Iraq War was a stoopid trap for Messrs Bush and Blair to get into.

As for attacking faith with reason – then I’m all for that but I believe it should be kept seperate from 9/11 and Liberal Democrats unless it is on specific issues which are relevant. To use 9/11 to attack all Muslims (as opposed to Al-Qaeda) is like attacking all atheists over WWII because some claim Hitler was an atheist.

I would rather challenge someone on their individual beliefs and as laid out in their holy text rather than assume they are a potential terrorist who is going to do a crusade or jihad against me.

How big a majority? The Pew Research Centre, in a poll entitled “What the World Thinks in 2002,” questioned Muslims as to whether they considered that suicide bombing was justified in defence of Islam. The results were as follows: Lebanon 73%, Ivory Coast 56%, Nigeria 47%, Bangladesh 44%, Jordan 43%, Pakistan 33%, Mali 32%, Ghana 30%, Uganda 29%, Senegal 28%, Indonesia 27%, Turkey 13%. I obtained these figures from the book The End of Faith by Sam Harris. Harris notes wryly that, “places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories were not included in the survey.”

Turning it purely into a West vs Islam fight is simplistic and falls right into the trap what such Islamic terrorists like Bin Laden want us to fall into.

Well of course we have fallen right into that trap with the Iraq debacle. What I am advocating is a Forces of Reason and Sanity vs ALL Religion fight! A good place to start would be at home with our own leading “moderate” Christian clerics.

This pretty much covers the religions that are causing all the trouble, and broadly speaking, these claims have been debunked by science and philosophy. If I had to boil it down to just one bullet point, then I would say that it is the belief in an afterlife which is the real killer, because it utterly diminishes the intrinsic value of life on earth.

Just going back to point 2. This is a really wide and somewhat vague question. Which religion are we talking about – as they don’t all believe in one god. And what claims? The existence of a supreme being, the existence of Hell, ability to walk on water etc? And of course who is ‘we’ – as the LibDems as any major political party will not have a shared view on this matter. Religion and politics should be kept as far as part as is effectively possible.

1. I’m not making any theological points and I see the truth or otherwise of any religions claims as being irrelavent to the points I was making.

2. My main point which i suspect i didn’t tease out sufficently is in Faith Groups we often have ultra localist, residents run non state actors often run a mutualist model. I suspect we often don’t think of them in thios way through.

3. I take it as given that many aspects of religion can be very conservative and absolutely any state funding they recieve has to be used in accordance with basic liberal principals.

I think there is a wealth of evidence in fact, but I merely throw that idea out as a metaphysical hypothesis. I am quite happy for it to be falsified. But I really don’t see how, given that we are constrained by reality, any good can come from being in denial of reality.

Nor can it possibly be proved to be true – just like a religious belief in fact.

Oh good. That means everyone will be falling over themselves to “respect” my idea.

This is a statement which is rooted in belief, not evidence, nor can it possibly be proved to be true – just like a religious belief in fact. The point that the original article was making was that there are plenty or religious groups which are deeply embedded in our communities, are run democratically, and respond more sensitively and innovatively to needs within those communities than any other bodies, statutory or otherwise, is a good one to make. Liberals believe in a pluralist society and we should be embracing pluralism wherever it is to be found. Of course there are religious groups which have thoroughly illiberal views and it is likely to be a waste of time trying to communicate with them, but they are very much in the minority in this country. This is certainly not the same as suggesting that the government should be co-opting religious groups to assist in social service provision, something I believe we should oppose.

No, because science is merely a reflection of reality. We can’t un-invent nuclear weapons and it would be meaningless to wish for that. Without nuclear energy, we wouldn’t be here at all, powered as we are by that monstrous nuclear fireball – the sun. If, at some time in the future, the Middle East goes up in a mushroom cloud, there would be no point in blaming the technology. But there would be every point in blaming religion, as we all know that religion would have been a major contributing factor to such a tragic scenario. We can’t reject reality, however much we might like to at times. But we can reject God because he/she/it is merely a product of our imagination. You could say that we need the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

The problem is that the evidence is no good to you because you have already found an explanation for everything anyone would put forward as evidence.

Not at all. Just give me a miracle. A good one. Grow back an amputated limb through the power of prayer. I’ll believe then. Plus we can shut down the NHS and save a packet.

It would be foolish to think that their faith did not influence their political beliefs.

But after Blair/Bush/Iraq, does anyone still think this is a good thing?

Hey, at least I don’t promote morphic resonance!

Loads of people (possibly all) I know who would class themselves as religious do just that. Eg all the Catholics who use contraception.

even.

Note to self: proof read.

I’m not against anyone believing whatever the hell they want to in the privacy of their own homes, but when it starts to afect me (my daughter has no choice but to go to a faith school for example) I start to get a bit annoyed. Any state endorsement of religion necessarily affects me, and that applies whether it is elevating one particular religion above others (CofE) or supporting lots of other religions too so they don’t look like they are being favouritist towards one religion or another.

(with apologies if some of this is a bit incoherent; I drank rather a lot last night)

Why didn’t God tell us? Maybe he did, we just weren’t listening coz we didn’t believe in him?!

As far as evidence, I guess the problem is that the evidence is no good to you because you have already found an explanation for everything anyone would put forward as evidence.

Having studied Albania as a student I think it was a very good example of a totally godless state, interestingly enough regarded at Nirvana by my Marxist/Leninist friends at the time.

So Laurence, I don’t have any problem with the idea that our party is a secular party, heavens I wouldn’t want to be part of a religious party. However, some of our members will belong to religious institutions and it would be foolish to think that their faith did not influence their political beliefs.

I have no objection in principle to Liberal Democrats working with “faith” groups, so long as those groups are providing services that Liberal Democrats consider to be in the public interest, and so long as those services are provided on a non-sectarian basis.

So I oppose the state funding of segregated “faith” schools, but I would support Liberal Democrat collaboration with “faith” groups that give aid to the poor and vulnerable regardless of their religious affiliation.

LB is using this forum to promote atheism and the materialist theory of mind, which is not – as I see it – what LDV exists to do.

Perhaps LB would be better off in a party more atuned to his opinions (many of which are illiberal). Maybe the Party of Labour of Albania or its modern equivalent.

The electorate takes in people of all belief systems and none, so we have to be inclusive of all, even Moonies and Scientologists.

Please, keep religion AND atheism out of politics!