A brief look at history will show how polarization is a root cause of conflict.  When polarization is great, it manifests itself in fundamentalism and radicalism.  Islamicism and the rise of the religious right in the United States are definite signs of the growing polarization of religion.

You might want to differentiate religion from fundamentalism in this context, but I think that is skirting the issue.  Moderate views of religion provide a certain degree of legitimacy to their more extreme cousins.  George W. Bush did get elected afterall, twice.

Should religion, and religious views, be above criticism?

Has anyone paid attention to the Canadian sextuplet case in British Columbia?  A couple gave birth to six premature babies.  Premature babies often require blood transfusions to survive and it is common practice.  The survival rate for premature babies in Canada is quite good, however two of these babies have already died.  The problem?  The parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses, who forbid blood transfusions.  Now note, these babies have no understanding of what it means to be a Jehovah’s Witness.  They have not made the choice of believing that blood transfusions are immoral.  The choice of religious belief has been made for them, by their parents.  The result is two dead babies.  Two people who will not have the chance grow up and have the freedom to choose their own beliefs.  We’ll never know if these two children would have grown up to be Jehovah’s Witnesses like their parents.  Instead, they are dead, because of what their parents believed.  If a definite link can be made between those babies’ deaths and their parents’ refusal to allow blood transfusions, those parents should be charged with child abuse leading to death.   They won’t be, though, because their behaviour is protected by this thing called freedom of religion.

An interesting byproduct of this religious polarization, is the rise of atheist activism.  It’s like a bar fight, one or two people start pushing, and before long everyone jumps in to support their people, whether that means friends, countrymen, or members of the same religion.

In the matter of religion, everyone seems to be gearing for a fight.

In comes the Rational Response Squad who put out this thing called the Blasphemy Challenge (www.blasphemychallenge.com).   The Blasphemy Challenge is basically a call for people to renounce religion on YouTube.  Over a thousand people have responded, posting their own videos renouncing, or denouncing in some cases, god and religion.

The problem is that, apart from bringing the question of the religion to a popular medium like YouTube, the Blasphemy Challenge doesn’t seem to do any good.  I’ll sum up the discussion it created on YouTube.

Theists: “You’re going to hell!”

Atheists: “You’re an idiot!”

What’s the point?

My cat and I decided to make a video response and I have posted it on YouTube.  It’s my (our) first video and we want to know what you think.

(this was originally posted as a comment to the original Blasphemy Challenge video)

It’s too easy for an atheist to get bogged down in discussion of details.  If you really want to start a broad movement, you’ve got to see the big picture, which ironically is the lowest common denominator for what benefit religion gives a theist.

It is not enough to be rational or logical.  In fact, that may be counter-productive.  That is not to say we shouldn’t be logical or rational, but we must also be strategic.

Because of religion’s near ubiquitousness, theists infer a certain home-field advantage which allows them to frame the debate.  It is a huge advantage for theists.  They get to choose the topic of debate and they choose their topics wisely — a loss or refutation of their claims doesn’t invalidate their belief system.

We need to take away this home-field advantage and frame the debate ourselves.

Here’s one example off the top of my head.  In our culture, belief in god is assumed to be the norm.  Atheists are forced to answer why they don’t believe in god.  However, belief in god is not the norm, putting the onus on theists to validate their beliefs.  Human beings are animals.  We’re also the only animals with religion.  To deny that religion is not the norm is to deny that humans are animals.  It shouldn’t be hard to refute any theist arguement about our relative status as animals.  At this point, the theists is forced to justify their abnormal views.  It’s just a short hop, skip and a jump to a discussion of how we are not exempt from the laws of nature that apply to every other living thing on the planet.  Theists have to justify how they are — again abnormally — exempt from these laws.