Was 9/11 really a religious crime

[PBTree]

JR Quote: This last weekend we saw some remarkable accounts of the 9/11 tragedy, on the 5th anniversary of this religious crime.

+

"we should never confuse religion with the church" (anon).

Personally that is what I think we are doing here, to some extent. I could make up a religion right now but it wouldn't really exist if I didn't start a church to promote it, and then bring in more and more church people to spread the word.

Don't get me wrong, I think all religion is a farce but I don't have to much of a problem if people want to believe. If you are such a social coward that you need a spiritual crutch to live your life, who am I to say you can't.

What I really detest are the churches and those who work in them. The so called decent people who convince others that they know more about some deity than they do. The people who convince others that this deity talks to them and instructs them. The people who never commit suicide acts themselves but convince more weak minded people to do it for them, as in the 9/11 case.

Religion didn't tell those morons to fly planes into the towers, church people did. Imams, clerics, ayotollahs call them what you like, they did. Bin Laden might have planned the attack but you can guarantee he and his men were brainwashed long before that, by the church of islam.

My view is that if good and evil do exist in the world, then based upon all of the disgusting things they have done over the centuries, the churches tend towards the evil side. Religions on the other hand, nearly always advocate peace, harmony, goodness etc. It is the church's interpretation of a religion that is the problem.

We get rid of all churches and we will be a long way towards being violence free in this world.

[Kopji]

I think that introducing 'churches' complicates the problem without helping solve it.

My view would be that 'religion' rises from the same creative human quality that art does. When it is expressed in a healthy way, horses pull plows. When it is not, the horses pull cannons.

Since we are only discussing viewpoints, mine is that there is a little crazyness inside all of us that is like those horses.

A healthy 'religion' uses the crazyness in a variety of artistic ways, some of which we see as pretty buildings and happy pictures of Jesus holding children. Some crazyness we see as doing nice things for no good reason.

An unhealthy 'religion' uses the crazyness as a kind of engine to build and maintain a foundation of power and often expresses itself with violence. The especially crazyfull are made into saints, devils, prophets, or martyrs.

It is the invention of 'spiritual authority' that results in the latter kind of religion.

[Kimpatsu]

9/11 was definitely a religious crime. The problem with your correspondent seems to me that they want to absolve Xianity from religious-based crime, thereby ignoring everything from the Inquisition to Paul J. Hill. A case of selection bias if ever there were one.

[valis]

Originally Posted by PBTree

J
If you are such a social coward that you need a spiritual crutch to live your life, who am I to say you can't.

Well that's mighty big of you, I am impressed by your open minded level headed nature.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Kopji

I think that introducing 'churches' complicates the problem without helping solve it.

My view would be that 'religion' rises from the same creative human quality that art does. When it is expressed in a healthy way, horses pull plows. When it is not, the horses pull cannons.

Since we are only discussing viewpoints, mine is that there is a little crazyness inside all of us that is like those horses.

A healthy 'religion' uses the crazyness in a variety of artistic ways, some of which we see as pretty buildings and happy pictures of Jesus holding children. Some crazyness we see as doing nice things for no good reason.

An unhealthy 'religion' uses the crazyness as a kind of engine to build and maintain a foundation of power and often expresses itself with violence. The especially crazyfull are made into saints, devils, prophets, or martyrs.

It is the invention of 'spiritual authority' that results in the latter kind of religion.

There is no way to prove the pro or anti religion argument one way or the other. You would need some large human society that has no religion and compare it to those that do. Until you can do that how else are you going to seperate religion from human nature?

[Thanz]

Originally Posted by PBTree

We get rid of all churches and we will be a long way towards being violence free in this world.

No we wouldn't. People who irrationally hate other people will find some other reason to irrationally hate other people without churches. My experience with churches first hand has no violence attached to it at all.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by valis

There is no way to prove the pro or anti religion argument one way or the other. You would need some large human society that has no religion and compare it to those that do. Until you can do that how else are you going to seperate religion from human nature?

What's to prove? No gods, very simple.

And, if we can't separate human nature from religion, then we may as well head back to the trees. If you were right, it would fully confirm a theory that human's ability create has far out-evolved our ability to think and be independent creatures.

[Overman]

Originally Posted by Thanz

My experience with churches first hand has no violence attached to it at all.

You must have never read the bible..............and should promptly be smote for it...

[Thanz]

Originally Posted by Overman

You must have never read the bible..............and should promptly be smote for it...

Well, the OP is stating that the problem is not religion but churches. Given that I wasn't around when the Bible was written, my personal experience remains the same.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Thanz

No we wouldn't. People who irrationally hate other people will find some other reason to irrationally hate other people without churches. My experience with churches first hand has no violence attached to it at all.

That's true, but look at it another way.

I believe that humans are inherently quite moral beings, just apathetic. I firmly believe that a huge part of the apathy comes from religion. Why bother about little problems like war, murder, rape and bigotry, when there's a big daddy who - when you die, no less! - is going to come along and kiss everything better. If that's not cowardice, I don't know what is. How easy is it to avoid issues like global warming, poverty and pollution when you're the chosen ones of your god?

How do you think the US/UK volunteer figures for Iraq would be if each and every grunt knew damned well that if he bought a ticket home, it was going to be in a body bag, the end? Likewise suicide bombers.

[Thanz]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's true, but look at it another way.

I believe that humans are inherently quite moral beings, just apathetic. I firmly believe that a huge part of the apathy comes from religion. Why bother about little problems like war, murder, rape and bigotry, when there's a big daddy who - when you die, no less! - is going to come along and kiss everything better. If that's not cowardice, I don't know what is. How easy is it to avoid issues like global warming, poverty and pollution when you're the chosen ones of your god?

I completely disagree. According to your analysis, we should see tons of non-apathetic athiests leading the charge on all of the world's ills. They don't believe in God, so they need to seize the day and blah blah blah. We don't, however, actually see this.

What we see are tons of religious-based organizations leading the charge on things like poverty and social work. Why aren't these people apathetic? Perhaps because they take their faith seriously and seek to make a better world - that whole treating your neighbour as yourself thing.

I don't want to be seen as saying no athiests are charitable - I know that many are. I know that many work in/for/with charitable organizations. But there are others that are apathetic - and it has nothing to do with religion. The sad fact is that some people - whether they claim to be religious, athiest, agnostic, or whatever - are just selfish lazy gits.

[The Atheist]

[quote=Thanz;1936The sad fact is that some people - whether they claim to be religious, athiest, agnostic, or whatever - are just selfish lazy gits.[/QUOTE]
That's true.

I'm not so sure I agree with the analysis that churches do better than secular groups. Churches have a few centuries of trying (and failing) behind them that the secular groups.

It would be nice to be able to discern whether atheists are more or less likely to be altruistic than christians.

[St.Michael]

Originally Posted by PBTree

Religion didn't tell those morons to fly planes into the towers, church people did.

Religion created the churches, temples, mosques etc.

Originally Posted by PBTree

Imams, clerics, ayotollahs call them what you like, they did.

Where do the clerics draw inspiration from? Religion.

Originally Posted by PBTree

Bin Laden might have planned the attack but you can guarantee he and his men were brainwashed long before that, by the church of islam.

The root cause of the brainwashing is the religion.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

It would be nice to be able to discern whether atheists are more or less likely to be altruistic than christians.

I'm sure you're up for giving us some unbiased research...

[Kopji]

Originally Posted by valis

There is no way to prove the pro or anti religion argument one way or the other. You would need some large human society that has no religion and compare it to those that do. Until you can do that how else are you going to seperate religion from human nature?

You would be correct, but I am not making a pro or anti religious argument, nor asserting that society can or can't exist without religion. Religion may well be part of human nature just as artistic expression is. I have more to write on this, but must help someone with their homework. Back later.

[Kopji]

A church is simply an organizational structure. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the 'churchness' represents a corruption of a deeper and more innocent quality of humanity we could label 'spirituality'. I allow atheists claim to that quality too.

Human nature is a funny concept. We do not fault fish for acting like fish, or birds for acting like birds, or snakes like snakes. But the great 'original sin' was disobedience - acting according to human nature - being curious and seeking knowledge over ignorance.

No, some expressions of religion cannot lay claim to human nature.

Within us are human qualities of curiosity, wonder, and creativity. We often have a shared sense of beauty we judge by but barely understand. If those qualities are nurtured we enjoy music and art, seek new knowledge of how things really are. People who encourage beauty are called great.

If our 'religion' causes us to reject those human qualities in favor of 'other worldly ones'... we are instead left to flog ourselves while marching around bullet pocked crumbling buildings.

This seems like a really simple and obvious choice to me, but I don't think it is a very popular one yet.

[PBTree]

Originally Posted by Kopji

You would be correct, but I am not making a pro or anti religious argument, nor asserting that society can or can't exist without religion. Religion may well be part of human nature just as artistic expression is. I have more to write on this, but must help someone with their homework. Back later.

Must admit I had this same type of conversation with someone yesterday. Their view was that without a religious base inthe world, there would be total chaos.

I countered with the argument that animal groups seem to live just fine with their own species and in some cases with others. Who hasn't seen idyllic pasture scenes with large groups of animals gettng on just fine, with only the occasional murder.
You don't see to much chaos in the animal world and you never see them praying or attending church. When I got to the part about apes living harmoniously (in the main) and we were descendants of these beasts so why can't we do it without religion or church, he got his ID back up and left.

As for altruism (couple of posts previously), I remember seeing a wild life show just recently that showed a lioness protecting a young antelope, in the wild. No religious or church driven conviction there, so could the lioness be classified as an altruistic atheist?

[The Atheist]

Soory, forgot to mention, I don't know whether you get advised directly, but I nominated you for that magnificent OP.

Also, now that I've kissed up to you, can I quote that piece on Extreme Atheists' website?

[jimtron]

Quote:

"we should never confuse religion with the church" (anon).

Personally that is what I think we are doing here, to some extent. I could make up a religion right now but it wouldn't really exist if I didn't start a church to promote it, and then bring in more and more church people to spread the word.

What's the significant distinction between church and religion, in terms of this thread?

If I'm not mistaken, the 9/11 hijackers apparently believed they were behaving righteously, in the name of Allah. Church wasn't necessary, was it? Doesn't religion always have adherents spreading the word, unless it's completely personal?

eta: "church" is a pretty Christian term, isn't it?

eta:

Quote:

Religion didn't tell those morons to fly planes into the towers, church people did. Imams, clerics, ayotollahs call them what you like, they did. Bin Laden might have planned the attack but you can guarantee he and his men were brainwashed long before that, by the church of islam.

My view is that if good and evil do exist in the world, then based upon all of the disgusting things they have done over the centuries, the churches tend towards the evil side. Religions on the other hand, nearly always advocate peace, harmony, goodness etc. It is the church's interpretation of a religion that is the problem.

Doesn't religion almost always consist of priests and rabbis and imams? Also, you don't need religion to persuade people to do evil (but it helps!).

I don't get this: "...churches tend towards the evil side. Religions on the other hand, nearly always advocate peace, harmony, goodness, etc." The houses of worship I've attended speak a lot about peace and love and harmony. There are many scriptures of different religions that could be interpreted by anyone as encouraging violence (certainly the OT, as has been pointed out), and that doesn't require going to church.

Where is the evidence that "churches tend towards the evil side" and that "religions...nearly always advocate peace, harmony, goodness..."

[Marc L]

Originally Posted by jimtron

What's the significant distinction between church and religion, in terms of this thread?

eta: "church" is a pretty Christian term, isn't it?

My guess would be that he's using "religion" to describe spirituality-the relationship between an individual and his deitie(s).
He seems to be using "church" to describe organized religions in general, where worshippers congregate in on a regular basis to receive indoctrination into the faith. Also, there is a central dogma that all members adhere to. This is opposed to non-organized religions, where practice is done on a solitary basis (ie, Neo-Paganism) and visits to shrines/temples is done for personal reasons, and there is no (or very little) central dogma.

Marc

[valis]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

What's to prove? No gods, very simple.

And, if we can't separate human nature from religion, then we may as well head back to the trees. If you were right, it would fully confirm a theory that human's ability create has far out-evolved our ability to think and be independent creatures.

Ummmm Okay I want to see what society would be like without religion. So I compare it to a society without religion.

Where would I find a human society that has never had religion so that I can seperate the differences?

[valis]

Originally Posted by PBTree

I countered with the argument that animal groups seem to live just fine with their own species and in some cases with others. Who hasn't seen idyllic pasture scenes with large groups of animals gettng on just fine, with only the occasional murder.

You don't see to much chaos in the animal world and you never see them praying or attending church. When I got to the part about apes living harmoniously (in the main) and we were descendants of these beasts so why can't we do it without religion or church, he got his ID back up and left.

As for altruism (couple of posts previously), I remember seeing a wild life show just recently that showed a lioness protecting a young antelope, in the wild. No religious or church driven conviction there, so could the lioness be classified as an altruistic atheist?

I'll bet said lioness was well fed at the time. This is just silly, my dog seems peaceful enough and he eats out of the cat box therefore if only people would eat cat feces the world would be a peacful place.

[joemailman]

Actually this thread gives me the opportunity to introduce a relatively new idea with regards to the 9/11 question asked and the assertion that religion and churches are to blame for human violence against each other. First let me suggest that ignorance is rampant all over the globe and preoccupies the values of the great majority of the 6.5 billion humans alive today. Secondly the decision making process is flawed because of ignorance and thirdly the human being is no more free on this planet than are the billions....no...trillions of life forms that exist today and have existed for millions of years. Human beings like these trillions of other life forms are economic organisms and only economic organisms......first and foremost from the top of their consuming heads to the bottom of their consuming feet. Wars, charities, personal decisions, interpersonal relations, quality of life and the thousands of philosophies that have come and gone have an economic basis and are fundamentally economic in structure and function. Trying to get the many religionists that post here and for that matter the many conservative and anti-unconventional thinkers who post here to consider possible errors inherent in their decision making process to consider changing their minds and accept a different philosophy is like trying to pull teeth. It can be done but not by those of us who haven't the ability to get them to listen and understand another and radically different point of view.

Getting rid of churches will not and cannot solve the problem of human interpersonal or international violence. Getting rid of the ignorance that dominates this planet's human population can and eventually will happen but not before a great deal more violence and bloodshed. If you think 9/11 was a catastrophe just wait....You ain't seen nothin' yet! Ignorance is extremely difficult to eliminate when those in control haven't the slightest idea of what they are doing.

P. S. The WTC disaster was economic in nature not religious as the pinheads in control would have you believe and accept.

[jdodd]

Originally Posted by valis

if only people would eat cat feces the world would be a peacful place.

I thought I was the only person who thought this. Thank you for letting me know I'm not alone.

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by PBTree

Must admit I had this same type of conversation with someone yesterday. Their view was that without a religious base inthe world, there would be total chaos.

I countered with the argument that animal groups seem to live just fine with their own species and in some cases with others. Who hasn't seen idyllic pasture scenes with large groups of animals gettng on just fine, with only the occasional murder.
You don't see to much chaos in the animal world and you never see them praying or attending church. When I got to the part about apes living harmoniously (in the main) and we were descendants of these beasts so why can't we do it without religion or church, he got his ID back up and left.

As for altruism (couple of posts previously), I remember seeing a wild life show just recently that showed a lioness protecting a young antelope, in the wild. No religious or church driven conviction there, so could the lioness be classified as an altruistic atheist?

We don't see animals doing math, writing sonnets, or studying medicine, either. So are all those things useless? Let's get rid of science, math, literature, and medicine! Animals get along fine without it, with only the occasional murder!

Your argument is reminiscent of the New Age sentiment that pretty much all technology and higher thought is useless. It really couldn't be any more fallacious.

[negativ]

Quote:

It is the church's interpretation of a religion that is the problem.

Problem is, there's nothing in any of the holy books that tells you you're free to interpret them any way other than literally. When the Bible or the Koran outlines who must be killed under what circumstances, there's no footnote saying something like, "Feel free to disregard this part if it offends your sensibilities. -- God".

If you genuinely believe that the Koran (for example) actually expresses the will of the Supreme Being, and that dying in the course of waging jihad against the infidels will get you the 72 virgins in Paradise, then flying airplanes into office buildings is actually a fairly rational course of action.

[Thanz]

Originally Posted by negativ

Problem is, there's nothing in any of the holy books that tells you you're free to interpret them any way other than literally. When the Bible or the Koran outlines who must be killed under what circumstances, there's no footnote saying something like, "Feel free to disregard this part if it offends your sensibilities. -- God".

Well, no not exactly. But for Christians there is the passage in which Jesus says that there are two big commandments - 1 - love God and 2 - Love your neighbour as yourself. Those are the biggies, the rest is details. So I can follow this and not feel the need to stone someone to death for mixing fabrics or hating someone solely for their sexual orientation.

[negativ]

I'm no theologian, but in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus seems to be saying just the opposite:

Quote:

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is saying that his teachings do not contradict the old law, they fulfill it. Even in the smallest matter, the smallest statement, the entirety of the old testament law & the prophets must be obeyed.

[valis]

Originally Posted by negativ

I'm no theologian, but in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus seems to be saying just the opposite:



Jesus is saying that his teachings do not contradict the old law, they fulfill it. Even in the smallest matter, the smallest statement, the entirety of the old testament law & the prophets must be obeyed.

Most Christians I know do not take the bible literally, that would include myself.

Just like most rational thinkers do not always think rationally.

[jimtron]

Originally Posted by valis

Most Christians I know do not take the bible literally, that would include myself.

Just like most rational thinkers do not always think rationally.

The religious people that I know personally don't take scripture literally (for the most part), and value peace and the golden rule. Unfortunately, though, there are many religious adherents that believe violence can be an acceptable way to do god's work, and there is plenty of scripture to support that view. And who is to say which interpretation of which scripture is correct or incorrect? Are the Catholics right, or Protestants? How about Jews or Christians--is it necessary to accept Jesus as god to be saved, or was he a false prophet--or something else?

Since religion requires a leap of faith, it seems to me that one needs to simply believe without evidence. So I assume that most religious followers believe that their interpretation of their chosen scripture accurately reflects god. If you don't take scripture literally, and your free to interpret it just about any way you want, you can get any meaning you want, just about. The Bible has been used in history to support slavery and argue against it. Which view accurately reflects god's view?

And what if the hijackers really do get to heaven--what if god is an intolerant beast (the way he sometimes appears in the OT)? Why is that any less credible than the benevolent, loving god?

Just wonderin'....

[Kopji]

Originally Posted by PBTree

Must admit I had this same type of conversation with someone yesterday. Their view was that without a religious base inthe world, there would be total chaos.

I countered with the argument that animal groups seem to live just fine with their own species and in some cases with others. Who hasn't seen idyllic pasture scenes with large groups of animals gettng on just fine, with only the occasional murder.
You don't see to much chaos in the animal world and you never see them praying or attending church. When I got to the part about apes living harmoniously (in the main) and we were descendants of these beasts so why can't we do it without religion or church, he got his ID back up and left.

As for altruism (couple of posts previously), I remember seeing a wild life show just recently that showed a lioness protecting a young antelope, in the wild. No religious or church driven conviction there, so could the lioness be classified as an altruistic atheist?

Some very ancient eastern religions are quite godless and exist as mostly philosophy. I think that if 'order' is promoted as a product of 'Religion Inc' they have some explaining to do about why things are the way they are. The Pope saying something in an obscure speech and having the Muslim world explode over it comes close to chaos theory.

There is some game theory research on altruism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/
This is interesting stuff but by the time it gets to someone like me I just simplify it and say that we evolved as social beings and not as individuals.

I find that people like the many nice thinking Christians on JREF make better allies than enemies.

One idea that I can be confrontive about is 'revelation'. Somehow someway, no matter how reasonable and thoughtful religious people are the holy books came to be written. If they aren't what they say they are why continue?

The harm they do is what I mentioned earlier - it is better to simply accept spectrum behaviors like schizophrenia or artistic genius (aka 'crazy-ness') as a natural part of the human condition. To create saints or demons out of people only makes sense as a kind of human consumption or sacrifice that assists believers in believing.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by valis

Ummmm Okay I want to see what society would be like without religion. So I compare it to a society without religion.

Where would I find a human society that has never had religion so that I can seperate the differences?

Genius. That kind of thinking and we'd never have invented the wheel.

[Skiltch]

(Brief religious digression):
Jesus also Did things that would go against that particular Matthew 5:17-20 view -- for example, rescuing the adulteress that was going to be stoned for her crimes, as the OT requires. The way I understand it, the OT is mostly about strict adherence to the law, while the NT is about mercy, so we aren't supposed to punish everyone who sins anymore (else who'd be left?) And Jesus is saying here that He's not overturning the law -- we still have to honor our parents, keep Sabbath, etc., -- but, he says later in other words, love and mercy also come first. In other words, the law's still there, but now there's even more stuff -- things that supercede it and such.(/digression)
I don't think its religion that's the problem. People are violent and bloodthirsty, and religion is as fine an excuse as any to kill someone. Were it to vanish tomorrow people would still kill each other over honor, money, politics, race, or their favorite baseball players.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Really, in the case of 9/11 even without the religious aspect, I'm pretty sure an attack of the kind on the part of Bin Laden would have still been likely. We supported Al Qaeda in their efforts to eject the USSR from Afghanastan. At the end of the Cold War, our support disappeared and our promises went unfulfilled. We thought Osama was "our boy" and he thought he was using us as a pathway to power. That's not religion, that's politics. Guys like Bin Laden (and even Bush) use religion as a means of getting their followers to do what they want. It's cynical in the extreme, but as Charlemagne once said, Princes rarely believe in gods themselves.

[jimtron]

Quote:

We thought Osama was "our boy" and he thought he was using us as a pathway to power. That's not religion, that's politics. Guys like Bin Laden (and even Bush) use religion as a means of getting their followers to do what they want.

In my view organized religion is politics. The Hebrew Bible/OT is all about politics. According to the book "Who Wrote the Bible," the reason some of the same stories are told two different ways, might be because the editors of the Tanakh were trying to reconcile the conflicting laws of priests (who , IIRC, wielded quite a bit of power and were therefore politicians of a sort) from Israel and Judah.

Even personal religion can be political, when you have a god who controls or at least significantly affects your destiny.

Bin Laden may or may not truly be a believer, but as Jerry pointed out he used religion to enlist his army. And of course Bush has been using religion in his politics since he corraled the Bible Belt constituency to help his dad get elected (and probably earlier as well).

So again, I don't see a distinction between church and religion.

[valis]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Genius. That kind of thinking and we'd never have invented the wheel.

Well I guess that totally refutes what I said.

No wonder I am a 'dim'!

[Marc L]

Originally Posted by valis

Ummmm Okay I want to see what society would be like without religion. So I compare it to a society without religion.

Where would I find a human society that has never had religion so that I can seperate the differences?

Well, technically, the Soviet Union didn't have religion, but Communism could have been considered religious to some extent.

Given human development, I don't think there ever was one. I am not an anthropologist, however.

Marc

[jimtron]

Quote:

Well, technically, the Soviet Union didn't have religion, but Communism could have been considered religious to some extent.

I would guess that many in the Soviet Union were privately religious, regardless of the government. How would Communism be considered religious?

[burrahobbit]

Originally Posted by jimtron

How would Communism be considered religious?

It was the gospel according to Marx. With commentaries by Lenin. And interpreted by Stalin

Basically Marxism- Leninism was as dictatorial as the christian church. It did not allow any questioning of the "Holy truth". Not suprising given Iosif Vissarionivich's early training.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Jerry_ex_machina

Really, in the case of 9/11 even without the religious aspect, I'm pretty sure an attack of the kind on the part of Bin Laden would have still been likely. We supported Al Qaeda in their efforts to eject the USSR from Afghanastan. At the end of the Cold War, our support disappeared and our promises went unfulfilled. We thought Osama was "our boy" and he thought he was using us as a pathway to power. That's not religion, that's politics. Guys like Bin Laden (and even Bush) use religion as a means of getting their followers to do what they want. It's cynical in the extreme, but as Charlemagne once said, Princes rarely believe in gods themselves.

*salutes* *Claps*

I agree that it is political, with religion used as a psychological lever where needed.

For joemaliman, who went all economic on us, there's more to politics than ecnomics, though the two are certainly entertwined.

For jimtron: the politics/religious fusion is well documented in Western civilization, and a point well made. The Pope is, among other things, a politician. Whether or not he should be is another matter. Given the growth from "underground cult/movement" to "official religion" to "global religion" I'll suggest that Christianity hasn't scaled up all that gracefully.

DR