Hipsters repaint bike lanes in brush off to Hasids - Brooklyn, NY

I think you have misunderstood the meaning of my comment. I was not trying to promote religions & stuff.

No, of course, I didn't think you were trying to promote religions. I was making a broader point based on the idea that religions are mostly full of stuff about love & harmony - my point was that the true religious follower, the most dedicated the most devout, the most studied and learned might appear to be a total monster to you and I - and I suspect all that is happening in your 'review' of his religion is cherry picking the good parts, rejecting the malevolence and misthathropy and telling yourself that this new version is the correct version - when in fact all you are doing is viewing this religion through the lens of your own liberal values.

Here is a question, to perhaps make my point clearer . . . . take these four scenarios, all informed by religion, all actual events.

Christians protesters condemning homosexuality at a funeral . . . . they have it all wrong, this is not Christianity.

Christians helping the homeless at Christmas with shelter and food . . . . they have it right, this is Christianity.

The killing of a woman for leaving the house without her husband's permission . . . they have it all wrong this is not Islam.

The distribution of health care and food to those who cannot afford it . . . they have right, this is Islam.

Would you broadly agree with the conclusions ? That the killing of a woman for leaving the house without her husband's permission or Christians protesters condemning homosexuality at a funeral is wrong and 'against' their religion ?

And that the other nicer scenarios are 'right' and in line with what their religion teaches ?

If you do agree with the conclusion about what is Christian and what is not, what is Islamic and what is not - and presuming you - like me - do not have the level of religious knowledge that any of these most devout adherents will have - then how are we making these judgements ?

That is kind of my point - although perhaps a little too effete - all we are doing is looking at someone else's world and telling them they have it wrong when it does not broadly match our own liberal values - even when they are a towering expert on their religion - compared to our limited knowledge.

So when I hear a politician condemn - for instance - Islamic fundamentalists as practising a distorted and erroneous version of Islam - it sticks out to me that the person who might have never turned a page of Hadith is telling the person who has dedicated his life to the study of that very thing that they have got it all wrong.

. . . . . . . rambling now (yet again) . . . must stop . . . . must stop . . .

I know that most/all religions have somewhat savage tribal undercurrents but they are mostly full of stuff about love & harmony which can be used to great effect in debates.

I can only guess you have never debated with a dedicated follower of any religion ?

It is simply nonsense to say that most (or all!) religions are mostly full of stuff about love & harmony - and the part played by tribal law is no more than an 'undercurrent' !

Have you even read any of these books ?

Assuming you have not read the Hadith and the Koran (tell me if I am wrong here) - and taking on board your idea that most (if not all) religions are mostly full of stuff about love & harmony - then could you think of any reason why - for instance - Iran chooses to put homosexuals to the noose based on theological teachings ?

Have the scholars and students got their religion wrong in your opinion ?