“I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religon”
say Christopher Hitchenshere
"We are a poorly evolved mamalian species...our pre frontal lobes are too small, our adrenalin glands are too big and our thumb finger opposition isn't all that great....we are afraid of the dark and are afraid to die and we believe in the truths of holy books that are so stupid and so fabricated that even children see through them...and I think religon should be treated therefore with ridicule and contempt and I claim ythe right to do so..."
Powerful words indeed. Hitchens seems to argue that from an evolutionary point of view, we are still an easily frightened species of undeveloped mamals, irrational and superstitious. I can but agree with him there. He reckons that religon is ineradicable within people who are frightened of the dark and of death. These overwhelming fears lead people to the 'false' comfort of religon, so they can imagine that there is a gracious benefactor overseeing their voyage through life. It is our primordial fears that have lead us into superstition and that religon is, therefore, essentially the result of fear.
"It makes quite large claims for itself, it says that it is the final revelation, it says that God spoke to one illiterate business man in the arabian peninsula,three times through an archangel and the resulting material that you can see when you read it is largely plagarised from the old and the new testament, almost all of it actually is plagarised (ineptly) from the the old and the new testamnet and it is to be accepted as a divine revelation and as the final and unalterable one and that those who do not accept this revelation are fit to be treated as cattle, infidels, chattel....well I tell you what, I don't think Mohammed ever heard those voices, I don't believe it and the liklihood that I'm right as opposed to the liklihood that a businessman who couldn't read had bits of the old and new testamnet dictated to him, I think puts me near the position of being objectively correct but who is the one under threat?
I think that Christopher makes an excellent point here and obviously it's not exclusive to Islam, so why are we more protective of religous opinion, declaring every under the sun sacred when in fact the position of objective truth more than likley falls on the side of the opposer of religous doctrine. It seems to me that these laws being brought into place to protect religon are in facts laws to curb the right of speech on such topics. If we not free dismantle the constructs of religon and openly criticise it's practice or history then we simply are relenting on our duty as enlightened beings and afford these insitiutions more piety and sacredness until eventually the slightest negative thought of any malcontented individual is treated with an instant beheading, hanging or other similar ritualistic cultist events with which all exclusive societies have always associated themsleves with as if it reinforces their connection with some supernatural element when in fact all it does it underline their staion as one of superstition and ignorance.