Scientific Fundamentalists
Fariborz, who is used to getting mad by watching 1 pic or 2 movies (sample 1, sample 2, sample 3, sample 4, sample 5, more coming soon!) and then stating some propositions which sometimes most professional scholars of the filed hesitate to admit, posted another story of his craziness. This new story is called “religion is the enemy of civilization”.
For those who have not read & are not eager to read Fariborz’ post: there is an old question in the core of his argument: “What percentage of current world religion’s adherents have thought about their religious symbols like God, prophets, books and so on? let me tell you, for most of them even thinking about this topic is taboo!”.
In a comment to that post, somebody called Yaman had written: “… Really, this is quite stupid…I am an atheist myself, but I have not made a religion out of it. Apparently you have.”
Umm, excellent! Does it seem mysterious to you? Read the following article to find out how an ‘Intellectual View’ (like what Fariborz claims to have/seek) may turn into a new ‘Fundamentalist Religion’:
“Scientific Fundamentalists” by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Part 1, Part 2.
Good Luck 
Join the Conversation
Great post, and I loved the conclusion of the article you linked to:
I find it very amusing when certain “thinkers” complain about the intolerance of religion, while they themselves are intolerant of religious people, failing to understand where we come from. I also find their arrogance and persistence of knowing the “truth” hilarious, because they inevitably become guilty of what they complain about.
For me, the people who say “Islam is the problem” are the same as those who say, “Islam is the solution.” Neither is a remark with a foundation from our lives and our world, and neither can be applied directly in that way either. They are both abstractions, slogans–and it’s too bad that people adopt them without even thinking of what they mean, if anything. Both are self-centered slogans that do more to reaffirm the speaker’s feelings of self-righteousness than they are slogans that can repair the world or that can help in analyzing our current state. That is, they are more about self-gratification than about constructive action.
I’m in total agreement, Yaman.
For those who are not familiar with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, he is an extreme bigot when it comes to his views about Arabs and Muslims.
There is one thing I agree with where he says,
How come it doesn’t bother Dawkins that the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq in the name of human rights and democracy, but in reality bombed the country to gain control of the country’s oil wealth? Why doesn’t it bother Dawkins that there are many problems with the official government explanation of 9/11 and 7/7? There is a growing grass roots movement (many of them non-Muslims) who are questioning the official explanation of these events. Why aren’t any of these scientific minded atheists interested in the truth regarding these terrorist attacks?
Randal:
yes, what you say about this rabbi may be true (I dont know); refering to that article never meant that evey bit of his personal attitudes is right, though ur hint might be necessary necessary.
Yaman:
The more I contemplate the society in which I live now, the more I understand that (for most of the people) religion is just a name attributed to a system of values prefered by them. I mean, in a semi-free society, people do modify the religion and make new traditions out of it in accordance with their own needs and preferences; and one may trace such a process throughout history. Even Islamic Scholars (whether Mufti or Ayatollah) sometimes contribute to this process, either delibarately or undelibarately. this whole story convinces me to accept that if there is any problem in the society right now, its primary cause is the people who either didn’t recognize their own problem or didn’t try to solve it through modifying the religion (by making new traditions, not changing the whole religion).
there may be an important objection to the above argument: that the religion may be intolerant to the modification. probably true, but this is not what I see in my society.
yes, Islam would never accept giving up on daily prayers, but prayers or fast are not something which could be considered as ‘the sole cause of every single problem’.
I put forward just an example, which convinces me that Islam may be compatible with every good thing you may imagine in an enlightened age: There are very pious, and at the same time very tolerant (with regards to international norms) people around me. they are so good examples to show that being intolerant of others is not a problem with the religion itelf, but a problem of those who practice it. the same analysis may be applied to other problems: not seeking scientific profress, not refering each problem to expert of the related field, etc.
(Good News: some intellectuals are trying to provide Islamic basis for tolerance… yeah, they are working hard here in Iran, and I’m sure that they will win! and their win, will be the first round of a series of changes, God Willing!)
Esra’a:
Thanks… you make me more confident.
Wow. Such hatred expressed for Fariborz. He really must have gotten under your skins.
Frankly I found his voice to be quite an interesting one, and rather informative, as a case example of the kind of thinking current in Iran today.
What really surprises me is how so many of you are trying to shut him up.
Finnpundit: Agreed. This site is not interested in dialogue as I understand it. The problem is that the “regulars” arguments are not in good faith. They already have a well-established point of view, and it’s pretty much that of the rest of Islamists. This site is content with parroting official indoctrination, which we are all too familiar. Reasoned argument and evidence means nothing to this site, if it doesn’t corroborate their self-serving view of things. In other words, the site by definition is self-defeating. Sadly, the level of arguments here are not even sophmoric; more like adolescent bantering…I know they will not publish this comment as they did not comment my 3 other post…Nothing to salvage here…Chao.
Uh oh, the right-wingers are angered again.
No one has shut him up. He got away with far too many articles and there are far too many members who echo his beliefs. I didn’t see any of you complaining when we kicked out people who incited hatred against Jews and posted nothing but anti-Jewish articles.
However, when the incitement are against Muslims, of course… that is far more “interesting.”
Serendep is clearly here to pass off her agenda, so I am not too concerned with her opinion concerning this site’s values. That’s one less troll to worry about. How many times do we have to suffer the inconvenience of people calling us “thugs”, or as serendip put it, people with no “intellectual capacity” to “achieve” anything of worth?
As for you Finnpundit, have any of your posts been deleted? No. Have any of Fariborz’s posts been deleted? No. Thus your complaint of this website doesn’t apply.
You kids need to learn how to bite on your tongue and think before you jump to lazy conclusions. What Mohammad did was criticize Fariborz, which everyone in this website has a right to do – didn’t we allow Fariborz to criticize us as well? Constantly. Go through his postings. For over a month now, he has done nothing but that, and he will do nothing but that. We will react, and rightly so.
Finnpundit & Serendip:
I think Fariborz is giving a false image of Iran/Islam (whether on purpose or not) to which you have no access. here I am to give another report of the case; and finally, choice is yours.
* be sure that nobody is going to shut him up.
Mohammad don’t bother with them. These are people with pre-conceived ideas, and those who insist that Muslims are bad and Iran is horrific. Anyone who says otherwise is a dictator, an apologist, and a liar. Serendip herself said that we don’t have the brain capacity to ever produce anything worthy, which is apparently why many Muslims are “poor” today. Of course, that only proves her level of education and her admirable intellect.
How can anyone gain anything from such despicable remarks, people?
When our faith is so badly misrepresented, let alone by one of our own authors, we’ll damn right speak up. Just as much as Fariborz has a right to express his opinion, we have every right to express a reaction. This is what Finnpundit and Serendip call “shutting up” and “intolerance.” They believe in freedom of speech, but not freedom of reaction. Only people they agree with can speak up, it seems.
Fariborz’language is a reflexion of the increasing majority of Iranian youth who suffer under a totalitarian religious regime.
His language cannot interests a little group of fanatics who remain BLINDED abd support the IRI.
Most people in Iran and, especially the Iranian youth, Muslims or not, show their will for a secular and democratic regime. Instead, those Iranian Hezbollahis just shows their mere ignorance and basic detest for the will of majority, especially that of the Iranian youth.
Jahanshah:
I’m developing a simple post about Youth & IRI. It may help others get a better idea of what is underway here in Iran.
As for you Finnpundit, have any of your posts been deleted? No. Have any of Fariborz’s posts been deleted? No. Thus your complaint of this website doesn’t apply.
Actually, I wasn’t referring to censorship specifically. I just found it curious that Fariborz was subjected to personal attack by a fellow poster on the site (rather than within the subsequent comments section). If the idea was to argue against his ideas, then that could have been accomplished without specific reference to him.
As to serendip’s comments, I find them too broad a denunciation when it comes to Islam. Islam can provide a basis for totalitarianism, but in its manifestation it is subject to the broad vagaries of human nature. Thus, there can be no doubt that there are many forms of Islamic practice, and that blanket characterizations are most often off the mark.
My main target is the recognition of other currents within Muslim thought: namely, the adaptation of the failed ideals of western socialism to Islamic ideals.
Fariborz’language is a reflexion of the increasing majority of Iranian youth who suffer under a totalitarian religious regime.
Janashah Rashidian’s comment, on the other hand, hits the mark. This is why Fariborz’s posts should interest us.
No, he serves as a perfect example to “scientific fundamentalists,” and the post was inspired by his own articles. I see in this post that his rants are disputed, where was he personally attacked? Because of the initial sarcastic remark?
And these posts are staying, but we have every right to articulate a reaction, which you don’t seem to agree with. Fariborz has been equally disrespectful in his posts, claiming that we are a “dictatorship” NOT because of silencing anything he said, but because of closing a thread that was simply hateful and out of control, Muslims were being referred to as thugs and death zombies. Is this really your definition of a healthy debate?
Even after we publicly apologized for closing the thread, his arrogance and disrespect just made him feel like he can get away with anything he wants at this place. He should be thankful that we are even giving him a voice. Most sites wouldn’t. Yet, our little genius Fariborz defines this as “dictatorship.”
So if your main problem is the reaction his posts targeted, then you have no case against this website, because this too is a practice of free speech. If we didn’t censor any posts, then you have no case against this place either, which begs the question: what is the problem? Why did you jump to your baseless conclusion that he was being “silenced”?
Exactly where did I say that he was being “silenced”? Nowhere.
What surprises me is the desire of so many to shut him up, which might take on all kinds of forms. It’s all a question of emphasis. I see nothing but disrespect, arrogance and hatred spewing from someone like Ray Hanania, yet I see no concerted denunciation being targeted on him.
On the whole, Esra’a, you run a very good website, and you should be commended for that, considering how many disparate voices can be heard. It is not your website policy that is at issue.
Mohammad:
Thank you, you could criticize me far better than just copy and pasting. I know it’s because I criticize closing a thread in You can spit on freedom! – part 2 this complaint and anger is here. It’s ok.
Let’s see what you wrote.
I am writing and I will continue to write about Islamic Republic of Iran and any Islamic fascism towards people.
It’s sad that not anybody has the courage to write about it.
Don’t you think religion is the enemy of civilization? What’s your opinion? I would like to read your opinion. why didn’t you write a comment if it was that bad?
So you’re pursuing my posts.
So did you think about your God, prophet and Quran?
It’s great! Tell me about it. What are they? What’s the purpose of them? I do have more questions to ask, just let’s start from here
Yaman comments exactly are:
He argues originality of post which it is original for me. He’s looking for some historically evidence which I didn’t provide anything from history. Because I thought everybody can study history! Also Jahanshah had an article before mine,
Non-Mahram is the Root of Islamic Hijab, which there were a very good debate about Islam and backwardness. It should help.
So should I consider myself Scientific Fundamentalist?
can you give me reason because I couldn’t justify it with your links.
Allow me to refresh your memory:
As for this:
Perhaps because the majority of us don’t hold your personal views. And if anyone wants to write a post targeted at him – they are more than welcome to. Ray is very good at dealing with criticism, and often responds to them in what ends up being a good debate.
Esra’s, this is a question of emphasis. I guess “shut him up” was a bad term to use: it has a more rambunctious connotation employed in raucous debate which, I think, falls short of complete “silencing”. I see no evidence of an attempt to silence him. However, there’s a desire to have him shut up, which certainly should be expressed, and which he himself needs to deal with (hopefully as courteously as possible).
For my part, I’ll try to be more concise.
The desire is to have him open up and discuss things more than just “it’s all Islam’s fault.” It’s painfully generalizational (if that is even a word), and it feeds the problems he loves to complain about.
Esra’a:
Lots of baseless accusations! Refresh my memory with constantly, over a month thing?
I right about dictatorship attitude for closing a thread and I wrote it shouldn
t happen in You can spit on freedom! – part 2.
after struggleing with you and your followers attackes in your comments in that article, finally you understood you mistake and you published a public apology then I accepted your apology. so I thought it’s finished! it seems it didn’t finish for you!
Please provide me your reasons why do I serve as a perfect example of scientific fundamentalists?
How? explain to me!
So it called sarcastic remark and you like sarcastic remarks. Good to know.
Who are these we? why do they follow? is this Islmic thing to follow one person? or not? or just it’s because of my post about moderators behaviour on closing thread? which one?
Oh! I thought you accept your fault! because I accept your apology in Public apology from this site’s management. so didn’t you accept it was a dictatorship act? should I repeat myself why closing a thread consider a dictatorship act?
where is this arrogance and disrespect? can you prove it?
Well, if you delete my acocunt it is considered total dictatorship. and yet, you misunderstand yourself!
I repeat myself The act of closing a thread is a dictatorship act.
What? Is this even English?
No one deleted or even threatened to delete your account, let alone any of your comments and posts, so what are you whining about now? Do you feel more confident when you exaggerate and make things up the way you do in your posts?
Sure, how’s this for arrogance?
I have every right to ask you about your entries, if it discredits the overall quality of this website. You should be glad that you’re even sticking around.
Disrespect comes from comments such as:
Followed by your incessant complaint that this site followed a model of dictatorship, EVEN AFTER the thread was re-opened!
Yes genius, that’s why the thread was re-opened. Yet, you still find a reason to complain like a child about it.
Finnpundit & serendip:
Thanks.
Esra’a:
If you read my comments throughly up there, it might be you can reply better
Esra’a:
by the way, when you copy my comments, be fair
Following is my comment:
You shouldn’t even ask me about my entries, because you’re not a censorship content operator, are you? I am free to write what I want while I am following policy.
Esra’a:
It’s ok I can forgive you again, just try to be fair when you copy my comments.
How about we add this new policy, then?
Refrain from posting articles that have the exact same subject which incite bias and hatred to a particular group or race.
There’s no difference between the above description, and “propaganda,” whose meaning states:
Why should we worry? I’ll tell you why, when members often write “Islam sucks, Islam sucks, Islam sucks,” readers will associate this place with the idea that “Islam sucks.” Especially if people take the time to write comments, which are later dismissed as “reactions that show that they are afraid from the truth.” Who do you think you are claiming that you know the absolute truth and that your opinions are “facts,” never generalizations? As a Muslim, your posts certainly don’t represent me. There are many Muslims in this website fighting for minority rights and free speech:
Free Kareem!
Arab Network for Kurdish Rights
Muslim Network for Baha’i Rights
Middle East Interfaith Blogger Network
Inter Iman
Free Haleh!
Who did all of these things? Muslims, some of whom are very religious and in love with their faith, in fact, like Dalia, the bravest activist I know.
What did you achieve, Fariborz? Other than blaming us and accusing us, when we are risking our lives to fight for human rights, only to come here and be described as ignorant, brutal, and gutless? Does that seem so “fair” to you?
Should Mideast Youth tolerate propaganda and misinformation, or should it worry for its credibility and overall quality of content?
Esra’a Wrote:
My articles doesn’t incite hatred and bias! if you or some others don’t like it, let it be.
Why do you mislead people with your comments?
Your comments suggests that my article was misleading one! Which is not true. Maybe you don’t like it. It’s ok but you can’t call it biased!
It’s your imagination because we do have lots of authors in MEY from different countries with different perspectives.
Also personally I didn’t write Islam sucks or things that imply Islam sucks! because Islam is just a religion like others.
It doesn’t matter what reactions shows, it does matter what is your logic and explanation to them.Every voice counts and every comments. Sometimes readers may attack you (like you attack me) but it shouldn’t change your mind and attitude.
I write my opinion and I stand to debate (healthy) with anyone, you name it. What does make you think that you know the absolute truth?
Nothing, I will discuss and debate with others and we will find out with reasoning and logic
Yes, it should be this way and also it shouldn’t bother you and you shouldn’t take it personally.
Because my articles are not for you.
It’s great, well-done.
You can find good and bad everywhere. why do you attach them to my articles? They are human at the first place, like yourself. Everybody can accept any ideology and live with it. so what? should it stop others to think about that ideology? why?
The first question is personal, just I can’t reply here.
Blame you to what? Which accusations? Did you make up these things on your own?
Did I ever used these words for you? Show me
who’s accusing now? you’re accusing based on biased information. This is your propaganda!
At least you accepted in your public apology:
So why biased accusations now?
If in the comments section, it is full of rants like “Muslims are thugs and death zombies,” then it is inspiring these kinds of reactions from readers. It is your responsibility as the author to prevent anti-Muslim hatred and abusive bigotry instead of supporting it, unless you approve of such behavior.
Blaming human rights abuses on Islam, rather than on the religious police in Iran, who don’t represent us and our ideals at all.
A biased mistake in CLOSING A THREAD WHICH IS NOW RE-OPENED. Get over it! This is an entirely different discussion on the QUALITY of your posts now, which are of course biased. We were biased in closing the thread, not biased in making sure that the content here is responsible and incites debate instead of sheer hatred.
If the comments in your threads are hateful against Muslims, that is your own responsibility. Instead of making it clear that you have nothing personal against Muslims, you say things like “you are correct, thanks” to those who have blindly blamed and accused us of being thugs and brainless fools, the biggest example being Serendip.
Where is your objectivity?
Esra’a:
Why should I get blame for readers comments? Should I stay online 24*7 hours to check to see who writes something wrong?
As an author, it’s my responsibility to manage hatred comments and warn people to prevent hatred comments.
During closing the thread! I wasn’t there while your debate with readers. it was your tone and others that went out of hand! Instead of asking for constructive debate, things went emotional between you and them.
It happens between kids
Also prove me, when did I support hatred message?
This is what you like to read, it’s not reality!
Reality is, with Islamic laws, Moral Police is necessary to preserve Islamic values like Hijab.
It’s non-sense allegations toward my posts.
It’s obvious! But you should know I can’t stay online for days and get ready for readers’ comment and be protective. whenever I see those comments, I will delete them!
Prove it?! I can’t recall that Serendip have ever used these phrases and I approved them!
I guess, Serendip has a good knowledge about Islamic society and most of the time she puts lots of efforts in her comments.
If you suggest she addressed Muslims as thugs and brainless fools, let me know. I found her an enthusiastic person who appreciates good discussions. Why didn’t you change the tone and didn’t talk to her?
I strongly believe that we all should be skeptical of anyone who brands himself a man of religion. Thus, coming across this thread I was first inclined to offer some help halting, what I thought was, an onslaught against rationalists.
It appears I am mistaken. Having glanced through a few posts by Fariborz, I recognize that he is on an equal standing with those who fiercely defend and advocate religion. Fariborz, and I mean no disrespect, your treatment of religion is philosophically naive, religion is not necessarily equal to a fixed set of practices, it is meant to be a deeper metaphysical thesis that provides with answers for certain metaphysical and moral question.
I am in no way defending religion, and as a matter of fact I completely understand where you come from. Your environment has nurtured you such that you became disillusioned with religion and everything it stands for. In fact, I do think that a lot of these religious practices are mistaken, unjust, immoral and totalitarian, as you rightly state. However, to move from that to an anti-theistic thesis is an unsound move. Worse even is when you try project that opinion, and it is no more than that, on the world around you, and criticize those who disagree. It is then that you would be on the same par as the religious police and other “religious authorities” you criticize.
As to the mighty defenders of Islam, I would like to invite you all to think of what Islam really is, because I, ladies and gentlemen, have no answer. Liberal muslims keep stating Islam is not this nor is it that, this does not represent us, nor does that, hell, I do it myself every once in a while.. the question then is: what is it or who really represents it? I think it is too soon to find a clear answer and yet there has been too much pressure on Islam to adapt to modern life in the last few decades, transitions that took several hundred years in “the west”.
I find several comments fairly amusing and irrelevant. I think Dawkins is a nutter, but to blame him for the British monarchy, or fault his position because he was not an outspoken opposer of the war in Iraq is simply absurd.
urm.. that is it for now.
Philosopher wrote, “…or fault his position because he was not an outspoken opposer of the war in Iraq is simply absurd.”
That is how a democracy works, by speaking up about the wrongs of the government and finding a way top stop the government from committing war crimes.
Dawkins is worried about the inaccuracies in the Bible; he should be more concerned about the inaccuracies in the newspapers and other forms of media.
Many atheists like to blame religion for most of the violence in the world, but the matter of fact is most wars are fought over natural resources and controlling land.
Philosopher:
If so, what is your opinion about prophets? if you’re skeptical of prophets, so tell me more about it.
Yes, you’re mistaken and your argument is irrational and ever bigger mistake where that you equal me to extremist religious people.
What are your reasons? give me an example? instead of baseless accusations.
and do you call yourself rationalist?
Its disrespect when you call yourself rationalist but you don’t provide any reason to support your argument.
How did I treat it?
I am sure, it’s not! Duh?!!
Moral sciences answer to moral questions. Back then in past 1400 years ago and before, you’re right! People needed religion not just for metaphysical and moral behaviors but also as a common ground for society.
We should study and discuss all productions of religion since it started! If even humankind needs religion for their own needs (or false-needs) we should have something that adopt to current technology and knowledge.
We are not living in the past.
I am not sure we share same experiences and knowledge but I could say; so far I didn’t find any reason for religion and from what I have studied, religion was enemy of people, science and knowledge.
If religious practices are mistaken, unjust, immoral and totalitarian and the religion is representing God, and the whole religion thing is an idealogy so God is just an idea which can be false idea!
why does it make Worse in your opinion?
This is another false accusation! Where did I criticize people, those who disagree with me on God or religion thing?
I don’t criticize people but I do criticize ideas because here we are to talk and discuss and criticize to learn more, Philosopher!
Islam is an idealogy with 1400 yeas old age so it is not too soon at all to find a clear answer what’s it all about.
Firstly, Mr RandallJones, I am not sure what you’re thinking. You seem to be implying that anyone and everyone ought to leave their professions in the UK and US and be concerned solely by the appalling actions of their governments.
It is analogous to arguing,
1. global warming is important to me
2. X, the economist, argued against my Y economic position.
3. Thus, X is mistaken because he is not concerned by Z, which relates him to global warming.
I hope you would agree this argument is absurd.
Fariborz, I am not sure what you are trying to do, quoting lines and random excrepts from my statement to attempt to show you somehow manage rebuke my argument. I indeed started of with my conclusion, that you are commiting a mistake, which later on I argued for. Simply put your argument is,
- from what I have studied, religion was enemy of people, science and knowledge.
Thus, all religion is bad/ mistaken (etc)
Now that’s just bad philosophy, simply bad bad induction. Bit of logic 101 for you.
Your more explicit argument tend to cite instances where actions by people where a “product” of religion, and those actions were bad. Now, as I said religion is more than just these practises, which are more influenced by people than any other part, if it does indeed have any reality.
So far bad philosophy, then you get personal, but contradict yourself, by proving that I am actually right in assuming “[Y]our environment has nurtured you such that you became disillusioned with religion”.
So, what your ending up with is no more than an opinion, that is your whole position, no more. Then to proceed with your generalized conclusion as if it is indeed a matter of fact and attempt to attack religions without qualification is indeed a worse mistake. This is what makes you on par with the same people you criticize, the only difference it so happens that in Iran they have the power, not you, which is unfortunate no doubt. You wish people to succumb to your “opinion” like self proclaimed men of religion in Iran use the force they have in hand to achieve a similar, yet opposite end.
I am not sure if I am a “rationalist”, as I am not sure what that implies. I believe, however, one should hold a logically consistent position with regards to his beliefs. I am definately not a rationalist about morality, as that has clear and distinct connotations.
Philosopher.
Richard Dawkins says in this interview (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR6Mu5JULBo ), “Neither I nor any other atheist I know, ever threatened violence; we never threatened to fly planes into skyscrapers; we never threatened suicide bombs [sic], we’re very gentle people.”
Joseph Stalin, an atheist, is responsible for the most deaths in the shortest period of time,
Dawkins intertwines current affairs with his arguments to make a case for atheism and Dawkins blames religion for many of the world’s problems so he should discuss the role of his government (that provides him security and wealth) in the atrocities and chaos it has brought to other countries.
There is a growing grass roots movement (many non-Muslim ) questioning the official 9/11 investigation. As someone who likes science, why isn’t Dawkins discussing the problems with the media and government’s explanation of 9/11?
If we do not get the truth, this phony war on terror will continue and a countless number of people will suffer from it.
Heh…lemme throw some gas on this..I personally take the George Carlin View of organized religion: There’s someone up there in the clouds who made and owns everything, “He” is really mad at everyone, especially those other people who aren’t like us, and He needs money!(you can just give it to me, the priest/rabbi/imam, I’ll make sure He gets it) I think Islam, Christianity, Judaeism, etc. are wonderful philosophies, they just get all messed up when humans get involved. I’m not an atheist, though, I just happen to think that God isn’t up in heaven with a big foam finger and a pennant cheering on whoever. But wait! That’s simplistic and disrespectful, you say! Religious cybernetics and philosophy are far more complex! Well, as soon as one combines a lawyer and an absolute authority, the first works projects are usually prisons and graveyards. Now, if you want to be offended, fine. I’ll apologize to anyone who’s religion has never inspired someone to kill another, and that goes for the atheists too. And for those who point fingers at “the other”, try looking at the twitchier members of YOUR club first. Finally, what do you call religious bigotry? Faithism?