On Professor David Colquhuon’s blog, there was a discussion about the closing of the Tunbridge Wells Homeopathy Hospital (I use that last word advisedly). This comment from Le Canard Noir struck some bells:

The real menace comes not from medical homeopaths, but from lay homeopaths, represented by the Society of Homeopaths, who are often dangerously deluded and a threat to peoples’ well being.

This seems remarkably like the view that moderate religious believers act as enablers for the extremists. They dare not criticise the extremists, no matter how distasteful they find their actions, because any criticism they use will necessarily be just as effective against them.

It’s the fact that these moderates still believe in physics and germ theory—rather than the ability of homeopathy to cure malaria, for example—which dampens their zealotry. The “lay” homeopaths who come into it without much in the way of scientific training are just believers, through and through. They have all the assurance of the creationists who blithely state that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

And the matter then becomes, as it is with religion—is a comforting belief useful to have around, or is it just too dangerous for a society to harbour any “official untruths”?

Just you have a read of this fantastic essay. It discusses religion and respect and puts eloquently many of the thoughts I have had about belief recently. Particularly in light of the whole veil-wearing thing with Jack Straw and then that teacher.

The comments (or at least the first 10 or so that I've read) are very positive; and I would like to add my congratulations to the author. Well said! I particularly like the rendering of religions as "special interest groups" — a very good point, I thought.

Gasmonso over at Religious Freaks has a couple of very good quotes from Syrian psychiatrist Wafa Sultan on the general state of the Middle East. I think you know — or can guess — my opinions on the dangerous effects of religion, but this is what she has to say about it:

In our countries [Algeria and Syria], religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight. Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources — I am referring to scientific sources — to play a role. It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not (the terrorist) who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.

How much death in the name of ludicrous ideals is required before people will question these things? There is nothing special or interesting about Islam. Any religion that claims images of a prophet are forbidden but has a collection of images of that prophet dating back many hundreds of years is as silly as one which makes a virtue out of blind faith and a vice out of knowledge.

I will continue pointing out the irrational motives of people where I see them. I hope you will too (especially if I’m the one being irrational).

From atheism, the definition of ferrotheism:

George Bush committed a felony. This makes him a felon.

Rosi O’Donnell committed gluttony. This makes her a glutton.

By the same token, God is an Iron.

If you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Iron, you are a Ferrotheist.