Deism is monotheism.

-------
"Hey, that's not very nice, Mayor--
just because a person's gay doesn't mean he's a fag!"
-Stan

---

I don't think that I've ever read something by Leary that I haven't felt was a complete pile of shit. This isn't much of an exception. I don't really know why Leary has decided to randomly equate all of the things he doesn't like about three monotheistic religions with monotheism, but pretty much every single point he made about monotheism was factually incorrect. One god doesn't mean expansionism, dogma, intolerance, sin, aggression, vengeance, ect. It means one god.

Deism is monotheism.

---

I think his point is that that belief in one god has led quite a few times to the aforementioned things. That's just how I take it. Mostly because I mean come on we all know Leary is an intelligent dude - it's not like he's the type to be "IT'S THIS WAY OR NO WAY," "ALL MONOTHEISTS ARE SHIT."

If anything the mistake he makes is using the term "monotheism," but that doesn't make his point about the major monotheistic religions any less valid IMO.

-------
Some people go, "booo," they go, "quack quack," they go, "kee"
Some people have nothing and want nothing and are free

---

I think his point is that that belief in one god has led quite a few times to the aforementioned things.

---

The problem is he doesn't present a reason that we should think that monotheism leads to any of those things.

---

If anything the mistake he makes is using the term "monotheism," but that doesn't make his point about the major monotheistic religions any less valid IMO.

---

The mistake is important because it changes the implications of his article. If Leary's points actually had something to do with monotheism, he'd have made a powerful categorical statement. As his points stands, all he's done is point to religions that he doesn't like and over-generalize/ exaggerate things that he doesn't like about them. Even Moridin could do that.

More specifically, I think that it does make his points about monotheistic religions invalid, because it reveals that the foundation for his arguments isn't logical. He hasn't actually provided an argument that establishes that the major monotheistic religions are, by nature, expansionist, aggressive, and vengeful (which explains the many, many manifestations of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism that are none of these things).

Post edited at 10:42 am on Nov. 22, 2008 by Wilder

-------
"Hey, that's not very nice, Mayor--
just because a person's gay doesn't mean he's a fag!"
-Stan

He has taken advantage of sociological biases that some carry, due to a resentment or prejudice towards common faiths (namely, that many people associate what monotheistic religions they are familiar with, with notions of guilt or herd mentality). The bottom line is that there is nothing inherent within the nature of monotheism that necessarily leads to concepts such as guilt, evil, and hive-like thought. The epistemological jumps between these concepts are fairly large, and Leary fails to make a proper connection between them. It is an interesting read, but I cannot help but feel that it is intellectually dishonest (at least from this small snippet).