OTM of The Logical Fallacy of Life

"Religion is not the opiate of the masses, religion is the placebo of the masses." (House season 5 episode 15 – Unfaithful)

Yup, doesn’t do anything but makes us believe that it does, right? Perhaps that’s why so many religious people don’t actually change after they have ‘got religion’?

I mean some do – alcoholics get sober, gamblers stop gambling and thieves stop stealing after having a religious experiences – but the large majority doesn’t. Not really. What they do is believe that religion is the little red pill, they took it so it’s working because Dr. Edgemar said it would.

That’s why so many religious people keep doing whatever evil they did prior to ‘getting religion’. They believe that not only have they changed, but the nature of their actions have changed and suddenly become ‘not-evil’. Because they believe religion has fixed them, and they are now ‘good people’ they believe that they cannot do anything evil or bad.

“But hey”, you say, “that’s not what placebo does, it either does nothing or the belief that it’s the right medication causes an actual ‘mind over matter’ cure of the disease!”. Yes. But go back to the beginning – Dr Edgemar said that it would work, so whether the placebo actually did something or not, is irrelevant because they don’t believe in the placebo, they believe in Dr Edgemar, and he said it works, so with or without physical changes, they must have changed. The Logical Fallacy of Life.

Advertisement

On the Matter of Belief in G-d

My very good friend Dale Husband commented

“if you rely only on scientific methods for knowledge, without any input from any religious dogmas, then the idea of a Supreme Creator might occur to you as a hypothesis, but an untested, unfalsified, and therefore unscientific hypothesis is all that it would ever be.”

Which gave me reason to say:

“Correct. Which is why it’s both bad science and bad religion to mix them with each other. But it is equally bad science and bad religion to claim either redundant.

To me this is where Philosophy enters the scene – it is apparently possible to arrive at the hypothesis of a Prime Cause through experience, as well as it is to arrive at the hypothesis of a Non-Prime Cause through experience – but both are dependent on further elaboration of the experiential evidence from a personal stand point to have any meaning. From a philosophical point of view both are equally valid.
It is when we elevate unfalsified hypothesis’ to doctrine that we enter the realm of bad theology and bad science.”

I then had the idea that:

“One of these days I am going to give the justifications behind my personal beliefs, *lol* I seem to be running into the issue a lot these days.”

So I’ll have a go at it…:-)

I agree that there is no scientific evidence either to prove or disprove the existence of G-d, and in fact such evidence is not needed. Why is that? Because when we enter the realm of theology we also enter the realm of Belief, where there is nothing to guide the human mind but circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is defined as ‘evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute’. Basically what it means is that there is no hard, physical – scientific – evidence for the hypothesis of G-d being a reality in the Universe, but that it is possible to understand experiential evidence in such a manner. Circumstantial evidence is a weak form of evidence, but it is nevertheless a valid form of evidence. In matters of Law and Science it needs physical evidence to back it up, but for the purpose of personal meaning it works just fine.

When the Author of Tehillim/Psalm 8 says:

“When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars that You have established, 5. what is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him? 6. Yet You have made him slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty. 7. You give him dominion over the work of Your hands; You have placed everything beneath his feet. 8. Flocks and cattle, all of them, and also the beasts of the field; 9. the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea, he traverses the ways of the seas. 10. O L-rd, our Master, how mighty is Your name in all the earth!”

he is looking at the Universe and all the wonders it holds and from this experiential evidence he concludes that SomeOne is ultimately responsible for this abundance of wonders. That is my personal position. To me the existence of all those wonders, from the microscopic one-celled organism to the Planet Itself and the Space beyond it is inference enough to spark a Belief in G-d as the Ultimate Cause of it all.

I find it difficult to accept the idea that the Universe as it appears to me on a daily basis is the result of chemical and physical laws, without any form of Ultimate Source.

Carl Sagan wrote:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant’? Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’

I feel that he was mistaken on one point – what the Hebrew Scriptures actually convey in terms of the Magnificence of our Universe and its Creator and what we are told it means are not the same thing. What is the basic dogma of a religion and what is what its Scriptures actually say is rather divergent matters. The seeming limits of experiences in the times when those Scriptures were presented to the world are just that SEEMING. We assume that because there is no detectable preserved Scientific understanding of the Universe among the authors of the Hebrew Bible that such Scientific understanding didn’t exist. The arrogance of such assumptions is staggering, in my opinion.

I would also like to disagree with the assertion he makes about what people of Faith say about G-d. I disagree simply because as one of those People of Faith I do not describe my G-d as little, nor do I disregard what Science says about the Universe and it’s intricate and magnificent mechanisms and laws, on the contrary I accept Science’s assertions of these matters, and in my mind it only increases the Magnificence of what I believe to be the Ultimate Source.

As I have said in other posts:

Many years ago I resolved the seeming conflict between Science and Religion by looking at what questions they answer respectively on the matter. I think perhaps I intuitively knew that the conflict lies not between the two Disciplines, but between the Disciples of both, because the answer to the conundrum of Science vs Religion I found looks as follows:

Torah/The Bible/Religion answers the Questions “Who and Why?“
Science/Evolutionary Theory answers the Questions “How, When and Where?“

in my opinion Science as such doesn’t give MEANING to human existence. It provides us with a basic idea of what we are in terms of biological, chemical and physical set-up, but it doesn’t explain the ontological aspects of human existence. It doesn’t explain why we, as a cultural species seem to be on the constant look-out for something beyond ourselves. It doesn’t answer the existential questions of human reality.

Correctly or incorrectly, Faith does explain and answer these queries to an extent that to most people seems satifactory, or at least enough to keep us looking.

Belief or non-belief in an Ultimate Source is a matter of personal preferences.

Ultimately I believe in G-d because I want to, because I need to and because I have found no reason not to. Belief in G-d as a statement is extremely personal and while the theological workings of such belief can be questioned and should be, ultimately it all boils down to very personal and very fundamental reasons, that cannot be questioned other than by the individual.

Science vs Religion or Scientists vs Religionists?

“…Dawkins replies “What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?”

“Neo-Darwinism, with its random mutations and lack of any goal, “cannot be reconciled” with the theological teachings of the Torah.“

“…this “need” among theologians and scientists to “reconcile” evolution with theology, or in some cases prove that they are the very opposition of each other, raises another question: Why this almost obssessive urge from either side, position in this?”

The quotes in Green and Red above represent an Atheistic and a Theistic approach to the issue of Science and Religion on the Topic of the Origins of Life, the Universe and Everything.

The quote in blue is me looking at the brawl from the out-side.

Many years ago I resolved the seeming conflict between Science and Religion by looking at what questions they answer respectively on the matter. I think perhaps I intuitively knew that the conflict lies not between the two Disciplines, but between the Disciples of both, because the answer to the conundrum of Science vs Religion I found looks as follows:

Torah/The Bible/Religion answers the Questions “Who and Why?“

Science/Evolutionary Theory answers the Questions “How, When and Where?“

Put like this there is no conflict, because in this “model” both Science and Religion are doing what they are designed to do. If we let them do that all is well. Because Torah doesn’t say one word about exactly how G-d did it – except alluding to ideas Science has already established (such as man being made from clay, which can very well be the “primordial soup” Science says all life came from) and Science doesn’t say one word about Who did it, though the very study of the mechanism of Evolution can lead individuals to the conclusion that some Prime Cause is behind it all. However neither Science nor Religion/Torah needs the other for verification or validation.

The problems start when we try to mix them, like Intelligent Design is doing or make them, two inanimate disciplines, responsible for what is really the doing of their animate proponents.

How ridiculous does that look? Two puppets on strings being forced to whack away at each other by Puppet Masters, not seen by the Audience, yelling at the top of their lungs:

– “Your puppet is beating my puppet!” Whack, whack!

– “No, your puppet is beating my puppet!” Whack, Whack!

– “Look what your evil g-dless puppet did, it broke the arm of my puppet!” Whack, slap!

– “Grrrr, that does it! Your brainwashed, fundamentalist puppet is going to Die!” Slap, whack!

Intelligent Design/Creationism doesn’t work, not primarily because it’s not scientifically sound, but because it attempts to create a synthesis of two ideas, substances that are not designed to be mixed, using tools that are alien to one of the substances, Science.

ID/Creationism presupposes a Prime Cause – that is after all why it exists, there would be no need for ID if that was not its prime purpose – but since a Prime Cause cannot be proved or disproved ID/Creationism violates the first premise of any scientific statement – verifiable evidence.

Science cannot answer ontological or theological problems, and Religion cannot answer scientific problems – both can lead towards the understanding of the other, and they do so frequently, but they cannot take over each others’ role in human life and be expected to lead anything anywhere. They work best side by.

Other Sites that discuss this issue:

In the Name of Towelie!

“Is Darwin Kosher?”

“Is Darwin Kosher?” Discovery Institute Hosts Orthodox Jew who says “No!”

“According to Rosenblum, Neo-Darwinism, with its random mutations and lack of any goal, “cannot be reconciled” with the theological teachings of the Torah.“

Would you expect a tree to have a goal? Or a salmon to be aware that it’s life is going to end at the very place it was spawned? Of course not! Just as little as I would expect my printer to be aware of the words it prints when printing the weekly parasha for me – does this lack of awareness disqualify the printer for its job? Does it make my understanding of how the printer works less valid? No. Why? Because the printer does the job it was designed to do.

In a way Science is like my printer – it can only do what it is designed for, and Science is not designed to answer theological questions or even cast light on those matters. The question that this “need” among theologians and scientists to “reconcile” evolution with theology, or in some cases prove that they are the very opposition of each other, raises another question: Why this almost obssessive urge from either side, position in this?

One very big reason is tradition – Science has traditionally been maltreated by the Church, and has therefore naturally adopted a skeptic and cautious attitude towards the Church.

Traditionally the Church has been obsessed with proving the truth of its claims and doctrines, one of them the existence of G-d, and since The Evolution Theory doesn’t require the existence of G-d to be accurate or even mentions G-d, it has been at odds with the Church from get go.

What does this have to do with Judaism? Well, in the view of many Evolution theorists Genesis is Genesis, regardless of who is reading it. But the truth is that Judaism has never bothered with such matters as proving the existence of G-d – that has ALWAYS been an axiom in Judaism – nor is Judaism really interested in the literal veracity of Written Torah, since Oral Torah is the basic Guiding light in Judaism. The Sages have always been reading Torah from a more or less loose point, through allusions, anagrams, allegories and general midrashing. Science, and a logical process has always been part of Jewish education, even back when our ancestors were mere farmers and hunters. So for Judaism the question of Science vs Religion is irrelevant.

Rosenblum was adamant that Orthodox Judaism in its reading of the Bible is not driven by a simple literal approach, but he maintained that Neo-Darwinian evolution stretches the theological truths of the Torah beyond their intended meaning.

Now, this is an interesting statement. Again this claim that “theological truths” have any bearing on Evolution or the other way around. Besides, anyone who has been just half awake for the last 10 years knows that it is actually the theologians that are trying to stretch Evolutionary Theory in a manner that was never intended.

Rosenblum clearly grasped the scientific issues. His article last year in the Jewish Observer challenged Darwin on the grounds of a lack of transitional fossils and the inability of natural selection to produce complex systems.

“Rosenblum grasps the scientific issues” to a degree where he is able to establish something that is not true – how brilliant! Sorry, I just couldn’t let that one be. “…on the grounds of a lack of transitional fossils”. On the matter of transitional fossils – perhaps the good Rosenblum need to read that?

Instead, Rosenblum, who himself is a graduate of Yale Law School and the University of Chicago, gave a lucid explanation of how Neo-Darwinism survives:

First step: Exclude all non-natural causes as a priori inadmissible. Second step: If Darwinian Evolution were true, it would explain observed taxonomic similarities between different living things. Third step: Since no alternative explanation exists to explain those phenomena, Darwinism must be true. … Fourth step: Since Darwinism is true, all explanations based on non-natural causes are vanquished. Note how that which was a priori excluded at the outset is now deemed to have been somehow disproved. (Jonathan Rosenblum, “The Myth of Scientific Objectivity,” Jewish Observer (May, 2006).)

That last quote is a nice and pretty little logical fallacy:

First statement is false in and of itself, since Evolution Theory does not have any claims whatsoever about non-natural causes – it’s purely agnostic in that realm, and on top of that it is irrelevant to the three following statements – it has no connection to the other parts of the chain. And since his fourth statement is dependent on the first for validity, that falls away too.

Now, how about Statements 2 and 3? Well, the problem is that Evolutionary Theory does explain the taxonomic similarities between different living things, and since Rosenblum stated “If so – then so…” he has disqualified his own reasoning and ends up with no need for alternative explanations, since only his second statement needs verification, and that fails. Simple logic.

The appearance of the idea of “non-natural causes” in this discussion is purely theological and is given power only because theologians have mistaken the aim of Science for the personal opinions of the scientists on theological matters. Rosenblum is no different.

Sanctimonius Bullshit Part 2

After I commented on Sanctimonious Bullshit in response to the guy who wrote the original quote, I decided that my response was deserving of a Blog Entry all of its own.

“Thanks for the comment. You made some very interesting assumptions. First of all, I’m not “an adherent of one of the most murderous religions on earth.” No more than I am an adherent for racism, just because many in this nation used to be (and many still are) racists. Do you disown your family because of past mistakes they’ve made? Could Christianity not have changed for the better over the centuries? I denounce the Crusades and other murderous acts of Christians. They were not “of God.” That’s not what Jesus taught. So, no, I won’t be saying that we can’t judge “Xtianism” by a “few bad eggs” during the past 2000 years. I will be saying, “Judge Christianity for what it is TODAY.” No different than you wanting to be judged for who you are today, not in your past.”

Did I say one word about the Crusades? No I did not. Because I am judging Xianism for what it is today – and it is still murderous. It still preaches the Global conversion of Jews, Pagans, Muslims and others, to whom it’s equal to spiritual suicide to convert to a religion not of their ancestors. Unfortunately this command to commit spiritual murder is in the Greek Scriptures, along side a whole lot of other Anti-other-religions speech.

If you believe that Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists and all others who are not Xians should convert to Xianism, then you are an adherent of one of the most murderous religions on earth – TODAY.

I have been trashed by ordinary, non-hostile Xians for using the terms “many Xians” the same way you used many in “So here’s a religion in which many of its followers are seeking to kill Christians” – so somehow it is a generalizing term – besides during the last 6 years to date Xian soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed more Muslims than Muslims have killed Xians in the last 1400 years…

I would not have objected if you had said “Radical Islamists”, but you didn’t – you generalized.

Now, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander, Nuh?

“Will you deny that a growing number of Islamics are extremists who wish to rid this planet of anyone who is not Islamic?”

Actually, I would – I would say that is a fear filled and Islamophobic hyperbole. Why, because the number of Radical Islamists during the last 1400 years have been constant, just as it has been constant when it comes to Radical Xianists. What have changed though is the way we communicate in the World, both Virtually and in 3-D. Before 9/11 the US didn’t bother to monitor the Arab World – but nothing have changed since 9/11 – just the way people get around.

Saying that people are not “of G-d” because they misbehave when it comes to your own religion and not extending the same “excuse” to the “Muslims” that do not represent Islam is sanctimonious.

I will comment more, but now I have to relinquish the computer to my wife

next installment:

By the way, how many radicals of 300 million does it take to create a dangerous situation?

Isn’t this just another way of spreading the Islamophobic hyperbole, I think it is – I could counter with saying that a radical fraction of 2 billion Xians is as dangerous – and name those too – the people adhering to the message of the book series “Left Behind”, which among other things teach children to kill non-believers, the members of the American Family Association, and other more or less militant, aggressive Xian Fundamentalist “ministries”. Now, those are Radical Xianists, and by all means let’s not forget the White Supremacist Groups, that also profess to be Xians, and the groups that blow up abortion clinics, murder doctors and nurses that are willing to perform abortions…good Xian kids who go gay-bashing as a weekend pass time – or for that matter people who think like Ann Coulter “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

“Third, I have read about judging, AND I pray about it. You had no problem quoting Jesus in Matthew 7:1, but you didn’t finish the quote:

“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged.”

Jesus qualifies our judging. He says that the way we judge others is the way he’s going to judge us.”

Now if we just read it – and not attribute the judging to Yeshu ben Miriam – what do we get? Right – as you judge others you will be judged by them – what goes around comes around – what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If I’m judged according to my blog statement, I don’t think I have much concern. Praying for a religion that has a growing radical element is NOT judging them.

But you are judging them – by deeming that they need your prayers – how the h-ll do you know that? You don’t. You assume they do, judged by your standards, and your ideas of what Prayer is – of which you can know nothing, neither of us do. The very idea that other people are in need of your prayers is arrogant and presumptious.

It’s praying for them. My prayer for Islamics is that they WILL be a peaceful religion and stop those within their movement who seek to radicalize it.

Well, you sure aren’t helping things by putting out Blog entries that only serve to heat things up, rather than cool them down, through Islamophobic hyperbole and generalizations. On the contrary, you are only adding to ideas like that of Ann Coulter.

By the way, that’s the same prayer I often lift up for Christianity. I wouldn’t call that hypocrisy. I’d call it consistency.

That you can do, but leave the rest of the world alone. Really.

“G-d – Imaginary Friend for Grown-Ups?”

I was looking through my Favorite Blogs on Technocrati, and came across dC – de-conversion where Roopster blogged on G-d being an Imaginary Friend for Grown-Ups. I was so impressed and inspired by his (her?) Blog Entry, that I just had to Blog on his (her?) Blog…you know the way Bloggers usually do. This lead me to two other Blog Entries, both on the matter of Prayer. I have to hand it to you guys on De-Conversion – you are honest, diligent and extremely spiritual – if religious people took their relationship with G-d (or lack thereof) as seriously as you do, we would have a far better world than we have.

From God: An imaginary friend for grown-ups?

Have you ever had a conversation with God? Have you ever heard his voice? There was a time when I would have absolutely answered these questions in the affirmative. After all, modern day Christianity is all about having a “personal relationship” with God. As with all good relationships, this relationship includes regular communication.

In reflecting on my past relationship with God, I have to ask- How is this any different than my daughter’s relationship with her imaginary friend? I recall listening to long conversations between her and “Digget.” Well, the most obvious difference is I am an intelligent adult who can use logic and reason- and she was three. Needless to say, now as a teenager, she no longer talks to Digget. (Roopster)

From What’s the Point with Prayer?

Why pray to an omniscient god? After all, it by definition knows whatever you’re about to say already. There is absolutely nothing you can tell an omniscient god. There is no point in communicating your desires to it, because it knows already, even before you yourself are aware of them. (Simen)

From Prayer: Communion with yourself

However, as my life moved on and as I learned more about the philosophical problems posed by such a transcendent Deity and by the differing “Gods” offered us by scriptures and by theologians, I began to doubt not only the efficacy of prayer but even the very concept of “prayer.”

My devotion time changed from simply receiving pre-chewed information from Christian sources into a rich time of personal thought, journaling, and a more careful selection of reading material, ones from a vast variety of sources, not just from Christian ones. Once I abandoned those preconceived notions about how we are supposed to pray, I began to trust myself again and realized that I had never really taken it too seriously from the beginning. In fact, I don’t claim to ever have communed with “God,” but I got to know myself pretty well! I think THAT alone is what scares Christian leaders the most. (-Mystery of Iniquity)

Ever since I joined a 12 step Program back in the 90’s, the idea of “G-d as we understood Him…” has been one of my lead themes. I still remember when I was having trouble with my image of G-d – having spent most of my adolescence in a charismatic branch of Xtianism, I was badly damaged, as you can imagine – and my image of G-d, or “A Higher Power” was dark and vengeful. Anyway I sat in a meeting and was just meditating on the Topic, when I had this cartoony like (I often see life in cartoons before my inner eye) image of a Big Burly Leatherman (Tom of Finland style) on a Harley coming at me – crashing through a thick brick-wall. On his leather cap the word “Bear” stood out in white. At closer analysis of this image, I realized that the image fit very well with my Inner Kids’ need for a Big Brother they could take with them everywhere. Someone that would definitely be able to defend them if they were in trouble.

For several years I called my Higher Power “Bear”. I still do at times, and I still see that Burly Guy on a Harley when I am really scared. Talk about Imaginary Friend for Grown-Ups…:-)

So what is the purpose of Prayer – if G-d (or Bear) already knows everything I am going to say? For starters – G-d is not Co-Dependent. He isn’t mind-reading us (that would be extremely unethical). One of the things we humans seem to have big trouble with is asking for help, admitting that there are actually things we cannot or do not know how to handle – practicing this skill on G-d (who won’t be offended) is a good way to start…

Then there is the matter of “Do we know what we need?” – sometimes prayer is actually discussing with ourselves to sort and crystallize things, so they become clearer to US, not to G-d (Bear). So that we know how to proceed in giving ourselves the best we can.

The last Blog entry quoted here illustrates this very well – Pagans call it “Grounding and Centering“, and that is essentially what Prayer is – whether it is directed at G-d (Bear) or just focused on “devotion time”, because we enjoy spending time with ourselves and our favorite books, music, journal.

“Prayer” is a tool for focusing, for centering ourselves, for unloading what troubles us or for simply being – the recipient is of less relevance.

Quran in the crapper – A Hate Crime?

You know, there’s a fine line between trying to get people to be sensitive and legislating in favor of people to avoid offending them. I could understand if someone beat a Muslim with a Quran. That’s a hate crime. Desecrating it? That’s hateful, but it’s not a crime. We can burn flags, we can piss on a statue of Jesus, we sure as hell can put Qurans in the toilet. I don’t care if it was intended to “intimidate” someone. There was no threat of violence, it was just a Quran in the crapper.

---

We cannot turn a blind eye to the message sent by a Quran thrown in the toilet, and pretend that it’s just a prank or doesn’t have meaning. Because it does, especially if there is an over all presence of religious or ethnic prejudices and phobias being circulated in society in general.“Where they burn books, they soon start to burn people…”

Throwing a Quran in a toilet might not be a violent hate crime, but it is certainly an expression of hate, and that is how it is understood by Muslims. It cannot be understood any other way in the Anti-Muslim climate that is prevalent in the US after 9/11. Hell, hating Muslims is almost a requirement to be considered a patriot.

One of the comments on the blog entry I quoted above reads:

“A hate crime is, partially, an act of terrorism.

Just wait and follow me a minute.

Let’s take your stereotypical hate crime. Klan members take cross, burn it on black family’s lawn. What happens? It sends a message to the family in the home, and the black families around that home: “You’re not welcome, we hate you, and we can very well do very bad things to you.”

Terrorism by its nature is meant to strike terror into the hearts of others who are similar to the victims who get hit. It’s to send threatening message to mess up their way of life and intimidate them.

Putting a holy book in a toilet is not intimidating. It’s immature.”

It’s very interesting that this commentator doesn’t draw the logical consequences of what she is saying – using one message to say:”We hate you…” is a hate crime, but not another, hm – how is telling someone “We hate you…” not intimidating, especially if the holiest item to them is used to say “We hate you”? If someone decided to burn Torah scrolls or throw tzitziyot in the toilet, I sure would read that as message that I as a Jew is hated for simply being a Jew.

Unless this is seen as a hate crime and dealt with as such, what will it be next – throwing Muslims in the toilet?

These two people need a couple of lessons in empathy and imaginative thinking. They also need to have their Liberal Cards revoked, because they are a shame to Liberals all over.

Sanctimonious Bullshit

Prayer For Muslims

This morning, as I was listening to my local Christian radio station, they were announcing the coming of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. The Christian community was being encouraged to pray for the Muslim people during this time.

That struck me as being very interesting. I understand that many people believe Islam to be a religion of peace, but I do not agree. I think most Muslims want to live at peace with the world, but the growing radical movement wants the destruction of all other religious groups. So here’s a religion in which many of its followers are seeking to kill Christians, but Christians are being asked to pray for them.

Sounds like the upside-down kingdom Christ talked about while on earth. Let’s pray hard!

“But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44)!

---

*lol*What a load of sanctimonious bullshit! Coming from an adherent of one of the most murderous religions on earth. Next he will be saying that we cannot judge Xtianism by a “few bad eggs” during the last 2000 years – yet that is exactly what he is doing with Islam.He is judging an entire religion and all its adherents as “not peaceful” on account of a fraction of 300 million Muslims…How about reading about not judging instead of praying?“Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. ”