The False Equation

...
The article really doesn't get any better from there. It makes the premise that atheism is identical to fundamentalism, and ties it to violence and attempts to deprive people of their civil rights, all claims completely contrary to the evidence (but who cares? It's OK to slag mere atheists with lies), and it's all wrapped up in a hysterical frenzy of anti-Dawkins terror. That guy really hit a sore spot, didn't he?

This is a thought taken up by Azzim Tamimi, director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought. "I refer to secular fundamentalism. The problem is that these people believe that they have the absolute truth. That means you have no room to talk to others so you end up having a physical fight. They want to close the door and ignore religion, but this will provoke a violent religiosity. If someone seeks to deny my existence, I will fight to assert it."

one of the people Stuart Jefferies quoted in an article accusing secularists of being intolerant is actually a representative of Hamas in Britain and in the video below can be seen calling for the eradication of Israel and expressing his support for various terrorist organisations in the middle east.

http://humanistsforlabour.typepad.com/labour_humanists/2007/02/the_guardians_u.html

There are two Hebrew words which are often associated with homosexual passages and which are mistranslated in many English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):
* qadesh means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple . This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. it is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.
* to'ebah means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew eating with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment would be "to'ebah."

In order to understand what the Bible has to say on heterosexual activity, we could consult the original Hebrew texts, dividing all of the references to heterosexual sex into different categories:
* rape;
* sexual abuse of children;
* ritual sex in Pagan temples;
* prostitution;
* sexual orgies;
* non-exploitive, consensual, monogamous sex in a loving relationship, etc.

The final category is the only one that would help us understand what the Bible teaches about heterosexual activity in a committed relationship. After all, a verse which describes how an army kidnapped some female virgins for use as sex slaves does not tell us anything about the role of sex in marriage today. A verse that discusses temple prostitution during the worship of Pagan gods does not instruct us about feelings of romantic love between a man and a woman. Similarly, in order to comprehend what the Bible says about gay and lesbian relationships, we must pass over the references to homosexual rape, male sexual abuse of boys, and homosexual prostitution, orgies, Pagan sexual rituals in temples, etc. We would be left with only those references relating to consensual sexual activities within homosexual partnerships. There may not be any of these. The Bible may be as silent on loving, committed same-sex partnerships as it is about planes, trains and automobiles.

There are biblical descriptions of three close and intimate relationships between members of the same gender. But there are no unambiguous passages that show that they were sexually active.

The Bible often condemns heterosexual and homosexual exploitive, manipulative sex, and prostitution, but may be totally silent on consensual homosexual relationships.

One is left with many Biblical passages which condemn fornication - sex outside of marriage. If one were to accept these passages as inspired by God, then one can conclude that the Bible considers homosexual sex within a committed relationship as equivalent to a man and woman living together common-law without having being married.

In order to understand what the Bible has to say on heterosexual activity, we could consult the original Hebrew texts, dividing all of the references to heterosexual sex into different categories:
* rape;
* sexual abuse of children;
* ritual sex in Pagan temples;
* prostitution;
* sexual orgies;
* non-exploitive, consensual, monogamous sex in a loving relationship, etc.

The final category is the only one that would help us understand what the Bible teaches about heterosexual activity in a committed relationship. After all, a verse which describes how an army kidnapped some female virgins for use as sex slaves does not tell us anything about the role of sex in marriage today. A verse that discusses temple prostitution during the worship of Pagan gods does not instruct us about feelings of romantic love between a man and a woman. Similarly, in order to comprehend what the Bible says about gay and lesbian relationships, we must pass over the references to homosexual rape, male sexual abuse of boys, and homosexual prostitution, orgies, Pagan sexual rituals in temples, etc. We would be left with only those references relating to consensual sexual activities within homosexual partnerships. There may not be any of these. The Bible may be as silent on loving, committed same-sex partnerships as it is about planes, trains and automobiles.

They make the fundamentalists able to get away with what they get away with. Once you get people to agree that god is a fact, then fundamentalism is just a degree.

He additionally, and I think compellingly, makes the argument that the fundamentalists are really the true adherents to the religion while the moderates are the ones that water down the religion to fit it to the reality that science has pointed out and that society has said is right.

I don't think Dawkins has a thing to say about you in his book. He is talking about "liberal Christians" among others and not agnostics.

I hang around in this forum because I enjoy discussing theology. I do not hang around in the specific religion groups because they have no relevance for me. Discussing how religion and theology impact our society is certainly not somthing that should just be limited to the believers.