The statement is true by itself. And, I was arguing under the premise that people actually do make a choice. That they do not blindly follow. That they are intelligent, in that they exercise it. Clearly – I knew this all along but failed to acknowledge while commenting – they don’t. Hence, a lot of idiocy in the world.

Your unabated argument on how some religions are, and their evils, has to some extent driven home some points. Thanks to Hitchens’, Pat Condell’s biting wit, Sarcasm might as well be employed as a medium of instruction.

(What is with the English, really? Somewhat an overstatement, I’m inclined to think that England is the seat of intellectual progression. Of course, its an error to extend that to all of England.)

“There is no doubt that Lincoln believed in some god but it is equally doubtless that it was not the monotheistic god. Belief in the monotheistic god does not allow universal benevolence; in fact, monotheism compels its followers to be ruthless towards all who don’t believe in one specific god. The prophets and founders of the monotheistic religions have never expressed any sentiments that come even remotely close to universal benevolence.”

I feel, kindness or justice has nothing to do with religion. Though one may belong to a particular religion, one might not imbibe all their ideas/beliefs from it. I am a Hindu, but I do have some views which are contrary to Hinduism. That does not mean, I’m not a true Hindu, or that I believe in a monotheistic god. It might be just what he chose to be.

I agree with rohit_indian. What is important is what these men did, when they could. And we should laud them for that. That is where I disagree with pankaj. Forming new ideas is not the only important thing to do. Doing the right thing at the right time requires vision, perseverance and determination. Both these men had these qualities, among others, and that’s why they are exclusively great.

There were already abolitionist movements underway before Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in 1862-63, and there was even a political party – Liberation Party (and to some extent, The Whig Party) – with an agenda of anti-slavery. The wiki page is quite informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#United_States

Also from the wiki:
“Vermont was the first territory (not a state at the time) in North America to abolish slavery outright in 1777. The first state to abolish slavery outright was Pennsylvania in 1780.”

So it’s difficult to conclude that slavery wouldn’t have been abolished if it weren’t for Lincoln.