That is a blanket statement without any actual evidence. I have a pretty firm understanding of this history and the article is right on point.

That is a contradiction.

"I just believe that most religions these days are tame enough that we don't need to be at war with them."

Which religions are you talking about Islam, Christianity?

I would not call being more irrational in a consistent way reason

That didn't deserve a down-vote +1

Yes ...in that he had to stop being obedient and mentally put the Catholic hierarchy on trial.

I could certainly see the principles of reason someday being packaged with the trappings of religion, for those who find such things comfortable. But we'd have to carefully avoid the whole list of fallacies that are most often used to sell religions, or it would not be reason.

Islam, though, is much more than a religion. It is a political movement that demands to rule the whole world. That is why I call for a reformation. Remember that Christianity and even Judaism once had (in the Mosaic laws) rules such as death by stoning for apostasy. They cleaned up their act. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I see that as a much more attainable goal than having all religion go away.

And I'm an atheist and have no ax to grind in favor of religion. I just believe that most religions these days are tame enough that we don't need to be at war with them.

The first thing that comes out is a deflection followed by character assassination and strawman. Though I'm impressed you were able to cram all that into a single line, it still earns you a -1 for being absolutely void of substance or serious intellectual merit. If the only thing one can come up with is a dogmatic argument reliant on rebuttals of logical fallacy, it is a truly poor argument indeed.

His history is bad. Point is that 'reformed islam' is even more bloody violent is well taken.

Perhaps, but the fundamental tenets are so vastly different as to render comparisons of projected behaviors to be extremely problematic. Predictions of future behaviors are based on beliefs which emanate as actions. The Enlightenment which happened in Europe happened in spite of a few power-hungry tyrants who had used the apparatus of the Catholic Church to enrich and empower themselves; the general populace was peaceful. The Islamic faith has no such peaceful populace to allow for such ideas, and in fact actively works to prevent any and all such.

While I would welcome an Enlightenment among the nations dominated by Islam, such is the antithesis of their religious ideals. While Christianity survived - and one could argue thrived - after Enlightenment, I do not see such prospects from such a conflict in Islam.

Thanks,

Hear Hear

Your standard excuse. You sound like the socialists when discussing Stalin or Mao or Lenin.

You take Luther's quote completely out of context. In his time, the only official "Christianity" was that peddled by the Catholic Church. Luther had read the Bible, however, and compared it to the teachings of the Catholic Church and saw significant doctrinal discrepancies. So he left the Catholic Church in disdain, believing in the Bible verse that said that God could not be the author of falsehood nor the representative of Christ's true doctrines.

What led to the Enlightenment in the first place? It was the Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and others who threw off the tyranny of the Catholic church and its extra-Biblical teachings in search of real truth. The Catholic Church actively persecuted scientific advancement because it undermined the traditions they had purportedly taught as doctrine, such as the idea of a flat world (the Greeks knew the earth was round and even calculated its circumference fairly remarkably given the tools), that the sun revolved around the Earth (the Mayans, Chinese, and others knew this to be false), and more. I would also point out that the printing press was created and its primary first use was publication not of scientific literature or news, but of the Bible. Once people began to read for themselves the true content of the Bible and compare it to Catholic teachings, it didn't take long for logical contradictions to surface. Only after the hegemony of the Catholic Church was broken (aided substantially by the cheap publication and dissemination of knowledge) did scientific progress begin to take off.

And why were people flocking to leave Europe to head for America? Religious freedom first and foremost. They were fleeing the Church of England (created by a king because he didn't want to be constrained by the Catholic Church's doctrine on divorce) and the Catholic Church of Europe with whom they held dramatic theological differences. But they were still predominantly Christians - with "Christian" not being defined by membership in the Catholic Church, but by a belief in Jesus Christ. They certainly weren't reciting the Qu'ran.

There were 252 documented suicide attacks last year alone. 250 were committed by adherents of Islam. Not a single one by a Christian. In fact, I don't know of a single suicide attack by a Christian in known history despite thousands upon thousands by Muslims, yet you want to claim that the two religions are the same? I would not have thought such blatant intellectual dishonesty from you. I'm very disappointed.

Publishers Clearing House just emailed me a PCH Front Page search for something shot at $5,000 a week and I felt inspired to look up~

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_...

I just learned Luther looked upon an Islamic attack as a scourge upon Christians sent by God.
Weird.
I look upon an Islamic attack as a target to place in the sights of something that shoots or drops things that go boom.

What is interesting is that most pagan religions were not so jealous of other religions. They would just incorporate them into their religion.

Centralized power corrupts regardless of the form it takes.

I'm sorry did you say reason things through?

As usual, Stephen Hicks's article on Islam is on the mark. A fuller treatment of the issue is my article (which he cites), "Does Islam Need a Reformation?" [http://atlassociety.org/commentary/mo....

"In short, Islam does not need a Reformation. The problem is that it’s having one now. What it needs is an Enlightenment."

I often think about Luther's ability to reason things through and how much chutzpah he had to stand up to a malicious hierarchy.

What a surprise

Christianity is what destroyed reason and science and caused the Dark Ages. It was only the restraint of christianity that allowed reason and science and this is still true today

Correct. Luther himself was a devout Christian and one of the primary leaders of the Protestant movement - though he was not the founder of the sect that came to be known as the Lutherans. To twist his quote to say that Christianity is anti-reason is disingenuous at best.

If you pinpoint the issue:
which is mysticism
you eliminate almost all this debate;
If that is really what you want to do
(which I don't think it is)

Stirring the pot/poking the glowing embers
only adds fuel/flavor to obsolete dogma.
Let it die the anti-intellectual death it deserves.
'Western culture' is still mostly creatures on their
knees in submission to something or other.
...keep the conversation going Mr.dbhalling et al.
However,
for others that know the meaning of Ayn Rand's
term Man-Worship there is an outlet away
from any speck of the
mystic/altruist/collectivist
and begins every day with
Reason/Egoist/Capitalist
as the moral premise.
...psycho-socially- an intellectual awakening.
Come and see it all for yourself.
In June, of course:
Inform yourself here:

www.GaltsGulchPortal.blogspot.com
ou en Français:
www.RefugeCanyonDeGalt.blogspot.ça
Spanish to come.

And I mean it.
JohnGalt Iamoura

I think that Martin Luther was referring to how the Catholic Church isn't really "Christian" at all. a

In his day if you actually stop obeying them your reasoning toward self-preservation must go...(at least in his time...not so much now). They eventually killed Luther.

A particular religion doesnt have to be all bad, and can incorporate SOME ideas based on facts. The idea of blind belief IS bad, however. Its my feeling that Mormons have good personal responsibility elements in their religion for example. Catholics dont have much reason in their religious beliefs, except perhaps some elements of the "10 commandments". I dont think much of Baptist religion at all. Jewish religion seems to be somewhat more practical than others.

Islam seems to have some financical responsibility elements that are OK, but there is a lot of "control" nonsense relative to women mixed in there with intolerance and violence. I would say that overall, Islam is BS and BAD.

The whole idea of Religion is BAD. Its the abdication of reason and the adoption of blind faith as determined by some prophet a long time ago.

Islam adds to that intolerance with non believers and violence against them. Makes Islam VERY BAD.

I want nothing to do with Muslims at this point until they at least drop the intolerance and violence from their beliefs.

Politically incorrect as it may be, thats what I think, and I certainly dont want a bunch of syrian "refugees" being given a free ride in the USA courtesy of MY tax dollars.