Younger Muslims Tune In to Upbeat Religious Message

"A Muslim televangelist [...] in a stylish goatee and Western clothes, [Moez] Masoud, 29, was preaching about Islam in youthful Arabic slang. He said imams who outlawed art and music were misinterpreting their faith. He talked about love and relationships, the need to be compassionate toward homosexuals and tolerant of non-Muslims.

[...]

Masoud is one of a growing number of young Muslim preachers who are using satellite television to promote an upbeat and tolerant brand of Islam.
Television preaching in the Middle East was once largely limited to elderly scholars in white robes reading holy texts from behind a desk, emphasizing the afterlife over this life, and sometimes inciting violence against nonbelievers. But as TV has evolved from one or two heavily controlled state channels to hundreds of diverse, private satellite offerings, Masoud and perhaps a dozen other young men -- plus a few women -- have emerged as increasingly popular alternatives.

[...]

After his speech in Alexandria, an angry older woman in a black veil pushed her way to the front of the crowd. "Why don't you talk more about punishment?" she said, urging a more tough-love approach to preaching.
Masoud smiled at her and said, "Thanks for your advice.""

Washington Post, December 2, 2007

I think this is fairly good news. It won't be enough, but the more people that escape the grip of men like al-Qaradawi, the better.

By the way, I just read a conversion story at a new forum for ex-muslims yesterday. Some conversion stories are quite dramatic, but read this... Afterwards, Moez Masoud, will be even better news. Anything is better.

My journey out of the abyss by BerberElla

Atheists dominate in the birthplace of the Protestant Reformation

"The wooden doors of Castle Church were long ago replaced by ones made of bronze, but what comes as a far greater disappointment to Protestant pilgrims, especially those from America, is that only about 15 percent of Wittenberg's inhabitants identify themselves as Christian.
Most of the others proudly celebrate their atheism.
"We knew that Christianity had taken a hit during communist times, but to come here, to the land of Luther, and to find so many people outside the church, yes, it was a surprise," admitted Stephen Godsall-Myers, a Lutheran pastor from Pennsylvania.
The situation is even starker when the pilgrims make their way to the town of Eisleben, Luther's birthplace. There only 8 percent of the population calls itself Christian."

Chicago Tribune, 12/01/2007,

It's not all good news, because obviously Wittenberg attracts lots of pilgrims, but I've read about this earlier in a Norwegian article and what I find interesting is that East Germany never went back to Christianity like the other former communist countries. And one of the reasons is quite clear: the secularisation of Germany had already started before Hitler managed to screw up Germany. Quite unlike the situation in Poland and Russia. So while the communists elsewhere tried to put a lid on strong religious convictions with force, the German communists had a much easier job. At the same time, in West Germany, they used religion as a way to make up for the war.
There could be other reasons too, like the continued German efficiency, but I think the moral is that you can't force people with strong religious convictions to convert either way. After a couple of generations, OK, but 50 years won't do it. Also, have a look at a former post of mine about the current stats in Russia.

Unfortunately, the otherwise thorough Norwegian article (which most of you won't be able to read anyway) made the error that Communism and Nazism/Fascism actually agreed on religion: "they agree on the goal of a secular, atheist society". This is not true.
Nazism was certainly a threat to traditional religion, and they were for secularism, in the sense that religion should be a private matter insofar as the religion could not be changed to be more nazi-friendly. But they were not for Atheism. Spiritualism itself was more than welcome as long as it did not collide with nazi ideals and was useful to their ideology. Instead they scared people with Communist Atheism:

"Communism with the Mask Off
In Germany we have religious controversies which arise from profound questions of conscience but have nothing whatsoever to do with a denial of religion. These controversies are exploited sometimes by harmless and sometimes malicious critics and a parallel is drawn between them and the absolutely dogmatic atheism of the Bolshevic International."

Goebbels, speech 13 September 1935.

This is not to agree on religion. And for the inevitable religous comments about the connection between Atheism and Communism there's only one thing to say:

It's the economy, stupid!

Nigeria: Yar'Adua Reaffirms Govt's Commitment to Secularism

"President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua has reaffirmed Federal government's determination to defend at all times the constitution and maintain the secularity of Nigeria so as to bequeath to the present and future generations a country where no citizen is discriminated against.
Speaking at the formal opening ceremony of the Assembly of the International Alliance of Catholic Knights at the International Conference Centre, Abuja , recently, President Yar'Adua said that the country's young democracy needs all the nurturing required to ensure its sustainability.
"In a pluralistic state such as ours, our duty is to ensure that we run a government that is a protector of all regardless of ethnic and religious affiliations. As a government, we are determined to bequeath to the present and the future generations a country where no citizen is discriminated against. We shall defend the constitution and maintain the secularity of Nigeria ""

Daily Champion (Lagos), Allafrica.com, 26 November 2007

I'll also post this reader's letter from Namibia which I wanted to post earlier:

"In this part of the world, the notion of religious conservatism is automatically associated with Islamic extremism. Other forms of religious intolerance as manifested in Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are seldom acknowledged.

Namibia, of course is a secular country. However, this is hardly ever mentioned in public. If anything, Namibia is characterised by religious conservatism which continues to exert a tight grip on mass consciousness.

This, regrettably, is a legacy of colonialism.

[...]

Since the mid sixties the liberated women of Europe and Latin America have refused to accept the moral authority of the church which has resulted in a downturn in mass religion there. However, the end of the Cold War left a huge ideological gap that has been filled by religious extremism especially Christian extremism. This has been noteworthy in the underdeveloped regions of Sub-Saharan Africa, with Namibia perhaps in the forefront as the most Christian society on the continent.

When are we going to have some serious debate about secularism, not necessarily atheism, in Namibia?"

The Namibian, June 8, 2007

A lot of people talk about how religions are receeding in Europe but spreading throughout Africa, but it's not like Atheism is pushed back in Africa. Christianity and Islam is pushing traditional beliefs back. There's a lot to be said about this, but there's one thing I think is interesting: Atheism is just a single principle, as we know. But as a collection of arguments, it's targeted at Christianity in particular. Most of us don't know how all those traditional religions in the world work be they from Africa or anywhere else, but we know Christianity and we're starting to know Islam too.

So my opinion is that these two religions pave the way for Atheism or at least secularism, because they make people start to talk a religious language that we understand.

Teddy the Prophet (pbuh)

New! Teddy the Prophet (pbuh). The really cute prophet who just wants peace. Very fond of teachers.

Facebook's unholy war of words troubles young Muslims

"It was the first thing she did in the morning. After joining the social network ing Web site Facebook in April, Essma Bargewee spent hours on the site daily. But the 21-year-old Montclair University student re cently deleted her account. Bargewee, a practicing Muslim, soured on the Facebook phenomenon after getting embroiled in a controversy over Facebook groups denouncing Islam and other religions. In July, a self-described atheist created a group with a name that explicitly curses Islam, angering many Facebook users."[I couldn't read pages 2 and 3]

The Star-Ledger, November 13, 2007

Now let's imagine for a second that Essma Bargwee did not sign off, but for some reason she thought the people attacking Islam made some sense. Let's say she in fact became an Atheist herself - an Apostate.
This could easily have been a lot more dangerous than merely browsing through bigoted rants at Facebook. (Touch wood.) .

So, without having seen the Facebook rants(not being a member), I think that her own religion is more dangerous. This probably explains why people start groups that are offensive to Islam. We don't like to hear that we should be killed, for various reasons. It troubles young and old Atheists, and in particular Apostates - former Muslims. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for one, can't just sign off Facebook. In fact, the internet is probably the only place she can roam freely these days. Who of all the offended Muslims at Facebook want to swap lives with Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

In the end, I have to say that I'm not in favour of blunt attacks where expletives are the most important thing. They're often accompanied with racist slurs too. My experience, however, is that most of them come from right wing Christians. In any case, making people sign off can't be the best way to make them understand?

Atheist History Month?

"Dawkins has also suggested that atheists, like gays, should come out of the closet. Well, what if they don't want to? I doubt that Dawkins would support "outing" atheists. But can an atheist "rights" group be far behind? Hate crimes laws to protect atheists? Affirmative action for unbelievers? An Atheist Annual Parade, complete with dancers and floats? Atheist History Month?
Honestly, I think the whole atheist-gay analogy is quite absurd. It seems strange for Dawkins to urge atheists to come out of the closet in the style of the all-American boy standing up on the dining table of his public high school and confessing that he is a homosexual? Dawkins, being British, doesn't seem to recognize that this would not win many popularity contests in America."

Dinesh D'Souza, Townhall.com, November 12, 2007

It's an interesting thought that D'Souza has stumbled upon here: "Hate crimes laws to protect atheists? Affirmative action for unbelievers? An Atheist Annual Parade, complete with dancers and floats? Atheist History Month?" I must admit I take a liking to this. But as D'Souza says: "this would not win many popularity contests in America.". Damn right, it wouldn't. Which is probably why it's needed.

Atheist History Month: One equivalent is Black History Month. According to stats posted earlier, 4 % says they are less likely to vote for a black presidential candidate in USA, while 63% are less likely to vote for non-believer. There's also National Hispanic Heritage Month, and 14% would not vote for a Hispanic candidate
Atheist Annual Parade: The equivalent is the gay parades. 46% would not vote for a homosexual. That's a lot, but 63% is more.
Hate crimes laws: Obviously needed, although I suspect Atheists are already covered (unless for a change they don't count Atheism as a religion)
Affirmative Action for unbelievers: This usually covers race and gender. Stats for Black and Hispanics have been mentioned, and only 11% would reject a female candidate. 7% would reject a disabled candidate. Again: 63% would reject an Atheist candidate.

OK, so let's see which group is most reviled among Americans:

63% do not want an Atheist candidate
46% do not want a homosexual candidate
14% do not want a Hispanic candidate
11% do not want a female candidate
7% do not want a disabled candidate
4% do not want a black candidate

I think Atheists are presently the most hated group. Please inspect the stats below if you disagree. Now, I'm not one to argue for parades or affirmative action, not for Atheists nor anyone else, but Atheist History Month would probably be very useful in USA, considering that a lot of the bigotry stems from ignorance!

Terror: Can We Blame Religion?

"In the wake of recent terror attacks, Western society has jumped to an easy and, it might seem, obvious conclusion. [blabla] [Sam Harris] contends that religion propagates myths that are dangerous, and that the world would be far better off without them. [blabla] What both Harris and Dawkins seem to overlook, however, is that religion has never been the unique instigator of violence. [blabla] The Soviet Union was a professedly secular society. [blabla] And there are more recent examples. Saddam Hussein led an Iraqi nation that “was thoroughly secular, [ruled] by a western-style legal code,” according to Gray."

Donald Winchester, Vision, Summer 2007 issue

Heard it all before right? Neither Harris nor Dawkins ever "overlooked" this straw man. It has been repeatedly rebutted, and just as often repeated again by believers. Here, Mr Donald Winchester, take a look at the famous "Problem with Atheism"-speech of Sam Harris.

"So too with the “greatest crimes of the 20th century” argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I’ve got news for you, this meme is not going away. I argued against it in The End of Faith, and it was immediately thrown back at me in reviews of the book as though I had never mentioned it. So I tackled it again in the afterword to the paperback edition of The End of Faith; but this had no effect whatsoever; so at the risk of boring everyone, I brought it up again in Letter to a Christian Nation; and Richard did the same in The God Delusion; and Christopher took a mighty swing at it in God is Not Great.

Did they overlook it? No, Donald Winchester overlooked it.
In a surprisingly (for him) nuanced comment he writes this:

"Does this mean that atheism or secularism is to blame for such slaughter? It would be hard to argue this. It simply shows that in these cases religion is not the cause of violence and terror. The absence of religion did not equal the absence of violence; the Jacobin Terror and Stalin’s purges demonstrate as much. On the other hand, the Spanish Inquisition and Islamic terrorism show that atheism is not the sole cause either. Indeed, many religionists are largely peaceful, as are many secularists. To ascribe the urge to violence to either is plainly unreasonable. Instead, we must search deeper."

That absence of religion does not mean absence of violence is pretty clear. We do not promise a world without violence. But what makes religions particularly dangerous when it comes to violence is that they are not falsifiable. Communism, as horrible as it was, is de facto falsified. We have all seen that it didn't work. While Christianity and Islam both promise an afterlife, Marx promised a paradise on here on Earth. And while there are lots of comparisons between religion and Marxism, the fact is that all communist regimes quickly turned sour. The experiment didn't work, and we have seen it with our own eyes. No such experiment will satisfy religious people, because their evidence will only come after death. The fact that living in the Middle East is probably worse than living in the USSR does not mean anything to them, because they expect a better life when they're dead.
So while Atheists can and will start wars in the future, they can not rest upon strange beliefs that can't be rationally discussed. Silly ideas won't last 2000 years.
Further, the argument about Stalin has magnitude as one aspect. But I think Winchester knows all too well that if the Spanish Inquisition had all the fancy new weapons of Stalin, they'd kill a lot more people. The crusades would have been much more effective too. I'm not sure, but I think that 911 probably set some world record as well. Not anywhere near the damage of the nuclear bombs dropped by the (so I hear) Christian country of USA, but you get the point. So as time passes, terrorists or religious fanatics in power are armed with better weapons and can inflict much more damage than the Spanish Inquisition could ever dream of(and I'm sure they did). I don't know what kind of nukes Iran are working on, but I bet they'll be more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.
But let's hear more from Winchester:

"Stalin and Hussein aimed for unbridled power; the Jacobins, like today’s al-Qaeda, hoped to convert the world to their own worldview. Even Dawkins’s and Harris’s recent tomes fall inside this tradition, belonging to a genre of books that is among the most ideologically violent in modern publishing."

Yeah, right. How many people have Dawkins and Harris killed? Ideologically violent... al-Qaeda blabla. This is simply nonsense, and it shows how dishonest the anti-Atheist bigotry is. (Sorry, if this blog post equals an attack by al-Qaeda)

In the end, I refer everyone to this brilliant story I posted earlier:

"Then there's the problem on the other side -- among the atheists such as Richard Dawkins who have been labelled "fanatics." Now, it is absolutely true that Dawkins' tone is often as charming as fingernails dragged slowly down a chalkboard. But just what is the core of Dawkins' radical message?

Well, it goes something like this: If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.

That's it. That's the whole, crazy, fanatical package."

Dan Gardiner, The Ottawa Citizen, May 05, 2007

The Blasphemy Collection

"The concept of blasphemy seemed for some decades to be in decline in the West, but not any more. It may be useful to look back at some recent cases of militantly religious outrage..."

Times, October 26, 2007

A fun story, listing some important blasphemies, the impact and how many people were killed in revenge and so on.

His Atheist Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

"I'm Buddhist, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. So actually I think that according to nontheistic Buddhist belief, things are due to causes and conditions. No creator. So I have faith in our actions, not prayer. Action is important. Action is karma. Karma means action. That's an ancient Indian thought. In nontheistic religions, including Buddhism, the emphasis is on our actions rather than god or Buddha. So some people say that Buddhism is a kind of atheism. Some scholars say that Buddhism is not a religion — it's a science of the mind.

Do you agree with that?

Oh, yes. I even consider Buddha and some of his important followers like Nagarjuna (one of Buddha's leading disciples) to be scientists. Their main method is analytical. Analyze, analyze — not emphasis on faith. And these masters are not magicians. (Jokingly pretends to clip me around the head and laughs.)"

Japan Times, Sunday, December 02, 2007

Atheists Hold Sway Among American Left

"Secular liberals, and especially those who are explicitly nonbelievers, have become a major force on the political left. Researchers have found, for example, that delegates to the Democratic National Convention - the politically-active folks who nominate the Democratic candidate for the American presidency - are more than twice as likely to be completely secular as the population-at-large.

[...]

To my knowledge, for example, Senator Hillary Clinton has never thanked the atheist community for what will no doubt prove to be energetic support for her presidential candidacy. Why is this? Nonbelievers might justifiably ask Mrs. Clinton and other Democratic leaders for the credit they truly deserve."

CBS News, December 2. 2007

Interesting, although I think the last lines says clearer what the real situation is: that leftist atheists are merely "cattle". Currently, they are not many enough to excert pressure. When that situation changes, the presidential candidates for the Democrates will have to spend less time in churches. I'm only watching this from abroad with half an eye, but it seems to me that while the Republicans feel the ties with evangelicals have damaged them(and probably vice versa), and try to distance themselves from them, Clinton (especially) want to attract religious voters. Barack Obama is more reasonable, but then his parents weren't believers as far as I understand.

Execute gays?

Two stories on execution of gays from respectively Muslims and Christians.

Norway: Islamic Council turns to European Fatwa Council for ruling on homosexuals

Jim Rudd on Gays: Arrest, Imprison, and Execute Gays in the Name of God?

Is Atheism a Religion? Defining Atheism and Religion

"Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it’s such a common claim, though, it’s worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.

[goes on to explain these conditions]

Belief in Supernatural Beings:

Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:

Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:

Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:

Characteristically Religious Feelings:

Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:

A Worldview & Organization of One’s Life Based on the Worldview:

A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:"

About Atheism, November 12. 2007

What Interests (Religious) Conservatives Most?

"What a person reads says something about them — about their interests, personality, and attitudes. What a group or movement reads also surely says something about both the group generally and the individual members.

[...]

According to the Conservapedia Statistics page on November 26, 2007, the "most viewed pages" on Conservapedia are:

1. Main Page? [1,949,393]
2. Homosexuality? [1,773,481]
3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis? [518,380]
4. Homosexuality and Parasites? [453,027]
5. Homosexuality and Promiscuity? [422,571]
6. Gay Bowel Syndrome? [404,480]
7. Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence? [374,426]
8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea? [332,257]
9. Homosexuality and Anal Cancer? [294,820]
10. Homosexuality and Mental Health? [294,197] "

About Atheism, November 29, 2007

No wonder they weren't satisfied with Wikipedia.

On Atheism and Hope

"Surprisingly, I actually agree with Pope Benedict about [Marx]. His essay rightly points out that Marx never offered anything like a blueprint for a just society, assuming that problem would resolve itself once the overthrow of the upper class was complete.
That said, to use the misguided ideas of a single man as a sweeping excuse to dismiss all non-religious philosophies is a most dishonest tactic. Communist regimes undoubtedly committed terrible crimes, but for the pope to attack communism as if it constituted the entire spectrum of atheist thought is irresponsible and deceptive. Like many religious apologists, Pope Benedict is stuck in the past, repeatedly attacking an obsolete historical doctrine rather than address the views held by the majority of atheists today."

Daylight Atheism, December 2, 2007

Yes, the Pope did not attack Atheism, but a straw man. It's an argument I've heard too many times. He tied Atheism to Marxism and by attacking the pretty dead ideology of Marxism, he thought he attacked Atheism, but that's far from the truth. Think of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens... who of them is a Marxist? None. Hitchens used to be, but is not anymore as most of his former fans will know all too well.

So until "New Atheists" actually try to spread Marxism, it's futile and dishonest to misrepresent Atheism as Marxism.

Feminist author Taslima Nasreen rewrites novel after death threats from Muslim extremists

"Today she relented under pressure and said that “controversial lines” relating to Islam from the autobiographical novel would be removed.
“The book was written in 2002, based on my memories of Bangladesh in the 1980s, during which time secularism was removed from the Bangladesh constitution. I wrote the book in support of the people who defended secular values. I had no intention to hurt anybody’s sentiment,” she said today from a secret location.
“I have done what I have never done in my life. I have compromised even in a secular India.” She added that she hoped she would now be able to “live peacefully” in India."

Times Online, November 30, 2007

Does Islam threaten free speech? Let me think, yes. I haven't been following the latest development here, but I'll post links to a couple of stories from November about her:

Religious Extremists Riot; Taslima Nasreen Leaves Calcutta
from About Agnosticism / Atheism

India - Feminist Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasrin in government safe house following violent protests by Muslim extremists
from IFEX All Regions

Taslima episode: analysis of failure of secularism in West Bengal (News From Bangladesh)
from Yahoo! News

Taslima offered a safe haven after riots
Times, 28 November 2007

Taslima reveals weaknesses in India's commitment to secularism
Times of India, 27 November 2007

Muslim fanatics oppose Taslima’s return
Hindustan Times, 25 November 2007

Writer leaves Calcutta after riot
from Internet Infidels News wire

Taslima Nasreen persecuted in India
The Australian, 23 November 2007

I have no respect or tolerance for Sharia

"But what has been particularly nauseating has been the British government's handling of the affair. According to the Foreign Office, they were "very disappointed" at the verdict. Really? Why didn't they simply say that the next aid bundle to Sudan, worth nearly £200m, was off the table and if anything further happened to the woman then crippling sanctions would be applied? But no, instead we got a load of mealy-mouthed rubbish about how this was a localised incident, that it didn't represent Islam and hopefully we can all hold hands and sing songs around the proverbial camp fire. But the problem is that this is representative of Islam." Ian O'Doherty, Irish Independent, December 03 2007

A hard hitting comment here and he goes on to list lots of Sharia episodes around the world.

The unfortunate teacher in Sudan has been freed, btw.
Protestors mob British embassy in Sudan as teddy row teacher is freed

I saw someone had used this teddybear below as an avatar at Richarddawkins.net and thought it was rather funny. The guy even had a very apt comment on the Pope's latest attack on Atheism( i.e. Marxism.)

Here's an improvement on democracy

"Consider some dates. Native Americans got the vote in the United States in 1924. Spanish women were given the same privilege in 1931, French women in 1944. Lords of the Realm in the United Kingdom could not vote in parliamentary elections until 1999. Although democracy began in Athens two and a half thousand years ago, it was for centuries a fragile flower and has blossomed only recently.
Democracy, we tell ourselves, is a hallmark of “the West”, the treasure that the rest of the World envies and that accounts for the pre-eminence of Europe and North America in economic progress, intellectual dominance and moral freedoms.
But it's not the case when you examine the chronology. The rise of the West had much less to do with democracy than with the rise of secularism. The West's advance was chiefly related to the decline in the influence of religion that sought the truth by “looking in” to see what God had to say, and its replacement by looking out, deriving authority from observation, experimentation and exploration."

Peter Watson, The Times, December 1, 2007

It's very true. Democracy rests on the idea that the population can rationally discuss and select the best options. But what if people aren't rational?

To Bash Or Not To Bash: The Debate Secular Humanists Do Not Need

"Some of us are bogging down in a debate over whether the promotion of secular humanism should involve "bashing" religion, or whether we should only focus on presenting humanism in a positive light. The answer is that both are necessary components of the secular humanist message, depending on the individual circumstances of each encounter, each audience, and each forum.

[...]

When we fear being accused of "religion bashing," we are buying into the trap our opponents have set for us. Republicans can criticize the political philosophy of Democrats and vice versa. Socialists and capitalists can criticize each other's basic worldview. Religionists, however, have insidiously snuck into the public consciousness the notion that religious doctrines deserve special insulation from criticism, ridicule, and doubt.

[...]

If we allow religionists to censor the words and arguments we use in our struggle to educate society in favor of secularism, we are essentially letting the fox guard the henhouse. Our society will never be receptive to a secular message so long as popular culture considers criticism of religion to be out-of-bounds."

Edward Tabash, Council for Secular Humanism

Btw, have a listen to this podcast with an interview with Tabash.

(Cheers to Skeptikeren.)

Apostasy is a right, not a crime

""There is no compulsion in religion" declares a famous verse (2:256).
[...]

How then came the ban on apostasy? Well, it was a political, not religious, verdict that soon became a part of the religious canon. David Forte, professor of Law at Cleveland State University, explains this fact very briefly and vividly in his article titled "Islam's Trajectory."
"The primary justification for the execution of the apostate is," he notes: "That in the early days of Islam, apostasy and treason were in fact synonymous. War was perennial in Arabia. It never stopped. To reject the leader of another tribe, to give up on a coalition, was in effect to go to war against him. There was no such thing as neutrality. There were truces, but there was never permanent neutrality. It is reported, for example, that immediately after the death of Mohammed, many tribes apostatized. They said in effect, "the leader whom we were following is gone, so let's go back to our own leaders.' And they rebelled against Muslim rule. The first caliph, Abu Bakr, ordered such rebels to be killed.
Many scholars argue that the tradition that all apostates had to be killed had its origin during these wars of rebellion and not during Mohammed's time. In fact, many argue that these traditions in which Mohammed affirmed the killing of apostates were apocryphal, made up later to justify what the empire had been doing."

[...]

The second thing that the origin of the apostasy ban shows is that Islamic sources need a serious reconsideration. What most Muslims attach themselves to as divine commandments are actually the political and cultural codes of the early centuries of Islam, which were, to be sure, man-made facts. The divine principles of a religion should remain eternally valid, but not its historical context."

Turkish Daily News, November 3, 2007

Higher criticism would be needed indeed.

Quebec secularizes religious education

"As of next September, parents in Quebec will have no choice but to send their children to a secularized “one-size-fits-all” course on moral education, the National Post reported.
Even private religious schools will be required to offer the course. Called Ethics and Religious Culture, it which will give equal emphasis to Christianity, Judaism, aboriginal spirituality, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

[...]

Many observers are worried that the course’s relativistic approach will make it even harder for parents with orthodox beliefs and teachers in faith-based schools to communicate their values to the next generation."

Today's Family News, November 7, 2007

Yes, it will make it harder for fanatics to brainwash their children. Not bad at all. Take a look at a summary of the program here. (PDF) Alternative and longer story here, from Canada.com

The church is responsible for today's moral mess

"Irish society in 1953 was morally adrift because it had no focus other than enforced blind obedience to a particular religious moral code. It is as painfully adrift ethically today because, having abandoned its blind obedience to that narrow, hypocritical and cruelly cold code, it has not been equipped with the mental and philosophical agility to formulate any other.
And that is entirely the fault of the education system controlled and operated by the Church. Surely if Ireland has turned out a crass, money-grubbing, vulgar, possession-worshipping population without finer philosophical values, it is the fault of the education system as provided by the Church? Nobody else was teaching a moral code."

Emer O'Kelly, Independent.ie, November 11 2007

A good piece on how the Irish Church's monopoly of morality meant that secular morality, that wasn't based upon subservience only, suffered. Morality get more feet to stand on in a secular country that allows different philosophies to exist. In a secular country, morality doesn't stand and fall with the silly belief in a ghost.

Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

"The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.
It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.
Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research."

Reuters, Nov 29, 2007

One has to wonder for how long the excellence will last with generations of kids being dumbed down by religious stupidity.