A Son of God? Edit 1.0003 erthona, billy,leah,71deg

[tectak]

it's starts off making me think it's a religeous poem, then it becomes apparent it's anti religion. no constructive crit, i struggle with poems that have a religious aspect to them. in this one it's the last line which for me doesn't work. it feels like it's another voice and not the person telling the poem. some good sonics at work with the [est's], [ack's] and the [P's] as well as more of the same elsewhere. i do like the contrasting of various religions and how they're shown to be alike in more ways than one. it could lose an odd word in places:[the] on L5, and the last line.  i enjoyed the read for all but the last line which feels too easy for a finish. is it okay to not believe in gods yet be scared of hell?

A call, a cry, a father’s name; a million heads turn round.
No John, or David, Pete or Mat will bring Mohammed down.
Saints infest the west but east is where the sneaking thief
steals the sons from precious life;
named in good faith to limit strife,
all synonyms for grief.

A century, millennium; time all but bombed by history.
The curse of being son of man eats hearts and souls; a mystery
made secret by your place of birth, unsure of what life means,
the young treat death as blessed demise
to trade for early paradise;
and everlasting dreams.

Love when you can for gods are strange, and do not love you back.
Why else do mortals fight their fights, in holy lands, in black Iraq,
in sunlit places, made for peace? They kill us with commands
to maim, to glorify a Lord.
Oh how we play on things absurd
right into hell’s hands.

Tectak being politically incorrect. Should I be bothered?
2014 and onwards

Thanks as always, billy.
I couldn't find the "the" on line 5 so cannot remove it. Is it me?
AABCCB rhyme scheme is one I have used before, on the same subject, but I cannot find the bugger. I have searched this site and others but I guess it is lost. My own filing system is a mess.

The last line and the line before are making the universal "absurd" point. See my comment in the crit above. It was supposed to be a subtle way of condemning belief systems by "playing on things absurd" like heaven and hell, and  how our belief in neither is often negated in our own arguments to make that point. This was after reading Peter Hitchins. The last line could be his ( it isn't, though) so I concede your point.
It must be hell to believe in heaven.
Best,
tectak