If you are still not disturbed by religion, you will be after reading this: In remembrance of Atefeh Rajabi

Atefeh won't be forgotten.

I wish it were so Grisham, really I do, but in the end I doubt it will matter. She is just another in a long line of victims from oppressive theocracies. Religions should never be in control of governments.

Once the shock and sorrow of the knowledge of such an event subside, the rage becomes overwhelming!!! If anyone ever needed proof that there is no God, this should be enough to confirm it. If there was an omniscient and benevolent being that really did have the power and really "gave a crap" about humanity, this could never happen!!! If this God of the Christians, Muslims and Jews really did exist, I would personally hunt Him down and feed Him on His own entrails!!! I wonder if the MSM would like to show those pictures?

I have always viewed organized religion as a disease. It rots nations from the core outward until the people being oppressed finally rise up against it. As you can see in the middle east the problem is they try the same thing all over again after they do win their freedom which will end with the same result, since they can not seem to let go of their religion.

I can not think the founding fathers of this nation enough for their foresight about religion.

anon-837192,

I beg your pardon. Religion is where all these sick bastards congregate to receive their justification and ordination to commit such acts........in the open!!!

You're being awfully general with that term, aren't you? That's quite a broad stroke. It's like you're watching a hockey fight and using that as evidence that sports are violent.

I've been in many churches, mosques, and synagogs. All are places where you're told what to fear, what to hate, who must die, and that we are all unworthy in god's eye,.........unless,.................!

All monotheistic constructs are indeed sadistic, bigoted, perverse, fear-mongering temples of absolute disgust!!! Broad stroke?

You are clearly far more disturbed and offended by a perceived slight to religion then to this brutal religious child murder.

This is a straw man. You are in no way representing my views (and using the word "clearly" doesn't make it any more representative), but you use it as an argument to support your previous claim and set up your next claim. Nice try, but it doesn't work, and you're still not addressing my initial comment that this incident is not representative of the concept of "religion" and shouldn't be put forward as such (as meaningless of a claim as that is).

I'm not asking you to teach religion, I'm asking you to defend your own absurdly generalized headline or admit that it this event does not represent "religion" just as a hockey fight does not represent "sports."

Regarding your other post: I have listened to this lecture, and I have read Sam Harris, and I do know quite a bit about my religion (Catholicism), and you'd be mistaken to presume otherwise. My main problem with Harris is that while he does know the "thou shall nots" he falls extremely short on the "why though shall not," at least when it comes to Christianity, specifically Catholicism. He does not understand it, he just knows facts about it. I don't disagree with everything he says - indeed, I think he is very right on some things.

And in full disclosure, I have not read any of Harris's books, only the material on his website and various article I have come across, but this is the impression that I have of him based on what I have read/heard.

What? Religion? Actually these people are the ones who are most closely following to the letter their "god's" law. It's the religious moderates who are straying from the flock, according to the words of "god".

At least that's true of the Judaic, Christian and Muslim faiths. I don't claim enough knowledge of hindu or buddhist faiths to say one way or the other about what they say, and I know enough about Wicca to know they would condemn this vehemently.

Let me declare that I'm an atheist. So whatever I say, please bear this fact in mind. I would like to express my support for anon-837192. The question, quite simply, is: Did Rezai do what he did because religion gave him the authority to do it, or did he do it because he was inclined to it, and used religion as an excuse? To put the question in another way: Would one of us from this discussion have done the same thing if given the same power by religion? Or would we even do such a thing because we're atheists, and so do not care about sin and god? The point simply is: Yes, religion causes problems. But the people doing stuff in the name of religion will still do these things even without religion. They'll just find another excuse. Let's get rid of religion; but, more important, let's get rid of the Rezai's of the world.

That final line by Steven Weinberg certainly pulled me up short: "But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I must admit, I had to think really hard on that line. But I recall reading in a book about American soldiers committing atrocities in Vietnam. There were incidents of rape, killing pregnant women, and, if I remember correctly, raping a six-year old. The question comes back to haunt me: Is it religion, or, as in this case, patriotism, or is it our propensities?

King Dave, I have to hand it to you. When you have people like Steven Weinberg and Seneca on your side, I can only try to cede gracefully.

Let's do this again sometime.

Karim.