I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Looks like you need to visit Betty Bowers, son.
I agree, I'm an athiest and I can't believe how hypocritical the White Christian Males can be sometimes.
Nice rant.
I'll pray for your soul.
Bwhahahaha.
Amen!
Ditto to all that you said!
well said
slightly off topic, but if anyone wants to ask Rev. Billy Graham if it was OK for the President to lie us into a war, they can use this handy form to do so:
http://www.billygraham.org/contactUs/
---
Right on target!
Conserva-victims. Fuck 'em.
Bravo Atrios.
People need to start realizing that, like sex, religion and spirituality is foremost a private choice. Noone else needs to know. If you care to be a missionary, that's fine, but separate yourself from government, or any office you may hold therein.
People really do need to stop mixing preaching and politics. We have achieved a level of freedom today unheard of at our scale in the past because of our separation of church and state.
That's my creed, private faith and public politics. We have made awesome gains in liberty, and it was not due to the efforts of fundamentalists of any stripe of variety of religion or spirituality.
I'm a freedom fundamentalist, and that's what I'm preaching. Someday, if we meet at a coffee shop, perhaps I'll share my spiritual faith with you as well, and you with me.
Until then, consider my faith to be in freedom. And our founders loved to say it, freedom is our inalienable gift from God, but God is not required to have faith in freedom.
Peace.
I'm a pro-choice practicing Catholic pissed at the hypocrisy of his church's leaders, and I think Bush's expressed sentiments are the worst sort of prejudice facing this country. "All men are created equal... as long as they think the way we want them to." They're the ones who are not patriots.
Dig that, man. I never have understood the whining from the "persecuted Christians" who piss and moan about how naughty America is out to destroy religion. Do these people not see the plethora of attention and ads for Christmas and Easter? Do they not live in towns that have rediculous, antiquated blue laws that are based in religion? Is not faith and religion used and willfully accepted as proof of moral clarity, even if there's rock-hard evidence otherwise?
Man, maybe it's just because I live in the South, but you can't swing a dead cat in this country without hitting a church. A week doesn't go by when some elected official doesn't invoke GAWD's name in fighting evolution or genital piercings or whatever foolishness they're frightened by.
And what's with "apologizing" for not believing in someone's fairy tale? The whole "I respect religious beliefs" thing. Do people do that for other ideologies, like economic ones? Do people apologize for not being free-market capitalist, but respecting the rights of those who are? Do they worry about insulting someone who does?
Look, whatever idea gets you through the day and doesn't make you hurt people, power to you. I think your god is a foolish fairy tale and I got that right. You may also believe my belief that human beings will one day evolve past their current stage to explore both inner and outer space as one group is horse hockey. Right on, you got that right.
Just don't expect me to believe you have fairies in your garden when you can show any evidence and I'll be right with you to have the right to insist they're there anyway.
At the risk of being ironic, I add my enthusiastic AMEN, brother.
hear hear
bravo
who hoo for atrios
i don't care if there is a god or not. but if there is - i wish it would leave us alone.
word, for sure.
I am sorry, but...
Animals
Bow down to gods;
Human Beings,
Do Not.
I'm afraid the persecution bit is built into Christianity, especially the evangelical sort of Christianity. No matter how many of them can be counted on rolls, they'll still find a way to see themselves as minorities (yes, sarcasm definitely intended).
The best thing to do with them is to let them go on attacking Hollywood and the music industry and what not. You screw with people's TV programs, they get mad. And, for all the crowing done about how awful it is, pornography is a multi-billion dollar business in this country. You think those consumers want a panel of neo-Puritans in the FCC or on the Supreme Court telling them they can't read Penthouse?
One of the really neat things about "culture war" wackos is that they always, always, ALWAYS end up shooting themselves in the foot.
Of course, if the President wasn't so heavily influenced by them, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Another reason to vote Democrat in November.
Thanks, we needed that.
I work among racists who hate the poor, gays, women and foreigners. They are pro-war, pro-death penalty, mean-spirited people.
When asked if they care about 10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, they say "we" don't have to care about "them".
They all call themselves "Christian".
Well said.
Testify, Brother Atrios!
Seriously, though. I get irritated at the way religion is used less as a kind of a spiritual thing than as a kind of test to prove that you have the right "credentials" to be considered a legitimate speaker about American politics.
You know, genuflect to the monotheistic Deity before you run for office or write a column. Or else it's a "gaffe" and an excuse for the right to rev up their fake outrage machine.
It's the same damn thing with patriotism. These are the two subjects you're simply not allowed to have complex ideas about in modern American mainstram political discourse.
As a pro-religion moderate, I salute your words Mr. Atrios.
Yes sir! Testify brother! (Atrios's "I'm tired of it" speech)
not to slam anyone's religion, but I think religion is the cause of the world's problems.
War? Religious excuses to go to war.
Women? Religious excuses to pesecute them.
Sex/babies? Religious excuses to not have abortion.
I'm sorry for saying this but I really do think, and it will be impossible, but I think the world would be better off without religion
And what is the deal with them in power whining how powerless they are? I had an acquaintence in a bar pissing and moaning about how "normal Americans" were low man on the totem pole these days. Intriuged, I pressed him as to what he meant by "normal Americans". He said, "You know, guys like you and me."
Oh. White guys.
I ended the convorsation rather quickly, as I felt my bile rising, but I wanted to shake the dude and holler, "You nitwit. We're RUNNING THINGS! We always have and probably always will." For cryin' out loud, if you got the smarts and lack of conscience, you can truly achieve anything this country offers if you're a white guy.
Hell, even if the "brown horde" rears its Hispanic head like the nimrods in Texas fear, white guys will STILL be running things. It's called "aparthide" look it up under "South Africa".
Relax. Have a donut.
hmmm, thersites and I seem to have had a mind merge there...
but if there is - i wish it would leave us alone.
evildoer
If there is, I bet it wishes we'd leave it alone.
Hear, hear, Atrios.
God was I wrong. It turns out that eternal damnation really sucks.
bravisimo, Atrios! Spot on.
Do we have to leave another country just to escape religious persecution?
It's not that I don't believe in God, it's just that I don't believe in belonging to any organization that would have me as a member.
Did Shrub copy his dad's crack about us atheists, or is that Bush Sr.'s offensive old quote?
Well said, Atrios. As usual.
Being religious is an individual activity, even though it flourishes within a church structure. It is a completely internal act with your own connection to God. To proclaim it to the world and strut your beliefs about is to negate the power they should have. Even the bible chided those who proclaimed loudly and did not follow words with works.
The yelling that is going on about who is more holy or has a closer connection to God is moronic and a distraction. Huff and blow all you want, but we will watch the actions.
Bush executed and even mocked those he put to death. He started a war the world community protested against. But he is "pro-life".
I guess what he says is more important than what he does?
" Dig that, man. I never have understood the whining from the "persecuted Christians" who piss and moan about how naughty America is out to destroy religion. "
Yup. I always tell 'em, come by my house. We'll get in the car and take a little drive. Within 5 minutes we'll pass between 10-20 chuches....every faith under the sun. Never a picket line of atheists protesting their presence, no one denying their rights, no one hassling them.
Looks to me like faith is alive and well in the US of A. But fundies can't raise the big Jeebo bucks without whipping people into a frenzy over being 'attacked' by secular, liberal scum.
As a radical atheist, or to mangle some dead languages, an apatheist, I fear this is way on the bottom of the civil rights list. As a society, we've made good strides on race and gender, and we've got some inroads on sexual orientation. But I'm afraid that Newdow's observation about atheists will be true for quite some time.
Not that we shouldn't call people on ridiculously un-American statements like Bush's.
And then, I'm the crazy guy who thinks Newdow will win 5-3.
You should have heard "GOP Strategist" Jack Burkman on CNN's "Live From" yesterday.
The issue being discussed was supposed to be a mosque in the US that had gotten permission to give the 5 calls to prayer through loudspeakers. The issue was quickly forgotten.
The first words out of Burkman's shit-filled piehole were "This so-called faith..." followed by the most insanely viscious slander of Islam.
I don't hold Burkman responsible for his horrific bigotry. I hold CNN responsible for giving him a worldwide soapbox for spreading his shit. Of course, the CNN anchor-babe let him spew every slander with no rebuke.
The LGF and religeous bigot axis are the reason why they hate us.
thersites and I seem to have had a mind merge there...
We were moved by the spirit!
Well said! No quarrel from me!
Good, compassionate people use religion for good ends (e.g., Quakers living with death-squad targets to protect them). Bad, crazy people hide behind it for bad ends (e.g., Ashcroft).
Other than that, theism and atheism are both unprovable faiths, and as such they're both perfectly OK with me as long as no one screams at me that I must agree, or else.
Essjay - "I work among racists who hate the poor, gays, women and foreigners. They are pro-war, pro-death penalty, mean-spirited people."
We should carpool, I think we work at the same place. These people piss me off so much with their hypocracy.
not to slam anyone's religion, but I think religion is the cause of the world's problems.
War? Religious excuses to go to war.
Women? Religious excuses to pesecute them.
Sex/babies? Religious excuses to not have abortion.
I'm sorry for saying this but I really do think, and it will be impossible, but I think the world would be better off without religion
Dom Suzanne | Email | Homepage | 04.23.04 - 11:09 pm | #
No. I disagree. It's not the religion, it's the practitioners. If used correctly, religion does much positive. Religion in of itself is neutral. Just because some use it for their own ends does not make religion the bad guy. I guess this is a variation of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Dom Suzanne--
Nope. People with a desire to persecute will use any available ideology to dress up their injustices. Religion, racism, state socialism, fascism, or any other sweeping body of ideas can be used to justify intolerance and criminal behavior. If we didn't have religion, something else would do nicely.
Besides, asking for a world without religion is like wishing for the sun to rise in the west. It's here, it's not going anywhere, so we have to deal with it.
What we need is a movement to come out of evangelical Christianity that claims that the direction that the radical religious right has taken is inconsistent with the central tenets of Christianity. It could happen. However, that will take quite a bit of time.
In the meantime, we need the voting public and our elected representatives to keep people like John Ashcroft (R-Choad) out of high office, where his extreme views are translated into official policy.
Yeah....what all you said.
BTW, and I'm just parroting this, but will the church disallow pedophiles from giving communion now that they are barring Kerry from receiving communion? Personally, I wouldn't want a pedophile sticking anything in my mouth.
"The religious are as deserving of persiflage as any other interest group in this fair country. To give them a free pass out of political expediency is both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. What's next? The imposition of a taboo against criticizing or mocking Republicans? If you listen closely, you can hear it already: "People, people, people. Haven't we learned our lesson yet? Immodest criticism of Republicans feeds into the stereotype of liberals as hostile to conservatism, which is something we're working to change so we can be more welcoming to possible conservative supporters of the Democratic Party." It is concessionist in the worst possible way."
More.
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.
Ok Now I'm officialy riled up.If the president wants to up and piss off the radical muslims thats fine and dandy,let him take the heat and the bombs that are targeted for him.When he pops his suckass mouth off at people who couldnt give one fucking iota about some schmucks fucking religion he can go fuck himself.This has gone beyond ridiculous and into the realm of facism that world has never seen.We athists have never been into bashing religion and have gone quietly into the night hunkering down from all the hari chrisna catholics and baptists,but its time we all come out of the woodwork and call a spade a spade.THis asshole who pretends hes in charge is for the communists and Nazi party in a light that would make stalin and hitler proud.George W Bush you can suck my unpatriotic athiest dick till the cows come home and you better hope I just dont spew into your face you fuck!
BushCO has brought nothing but religious prosecution to the freedom loving peoples of Iraq.
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.
Damn, I thought I'd said that.
not to slam anyone's religion, but I think religion is the cause of the world's problems.
Which is like saying that being human is the cause of the world's problems. True, but so what? If you're going to wish for unattainable things, why not just get rid of aggression instead?
Any dogmatic certainty about the ultimate meaning of life is a faith by definition.
Amen. what you said is more Christian than most of the hateful garbage spewing from Christian fundamentalists.
Most fundies are money-sucking scam-artists who for the most part have never taken anything Jesus said or anything in the New Testament seriously. they're the exact guys that Jesus threw out of the Temple, and they're the exact type of people who crucified him—fundies (in those times, the Saducees and Pharisees) Jesus was not a fundamentalist and in fact condemned fundamentalism, so all these guys are frauds and they better hope that there isn't a God or an afterlife.
everyone who is not a Christian should know that fundies are hypocrites who have debased their religion, and should not be taken seriously. these guys wouldn't know Christianity if it bit them in the ass and tore them a new one. don't even dignify their corrupt spewage with rationality. abhor them like the sacks of shit they really are.
It's not the religion, it's the practitioners. If used correctly, religion does much positive.
Right. I have nothing against Dorothy Day, for instance.
Smalfish. It was George H.W. Bush that said that. Not Duhbya.
Jude: What you said. Very well put.
I suppose it wouldn't hurt if a movement would come out of radical Islam claiming that ijtihad was once again acceptable, and that jihad again referred to one's own internal struggle to abide by the Five Pillars and do God's good work.
Islamists will, I hope, one day focus on a sort of Islamic chauvinism, and attempt to improve things locally rather than to fight external enemies.
I realize that this pipe dream is completely ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I know. I just didn't want to start thinking about that in depth on a Friday night.
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."
King George the First said this, right? Still, the apple from the tree, no doubt.
But fucking little boys is no barrier to advancement in the Catholic church (or wasn't for eons, and until only 10-20 months ago), but heavan forbid if you happen to be a 'liberal.' That's cause for condemnation to eternal hell.
I was raised Catholic, so shut up.
And while you are at it, fuck the fucking hypocrites and their pope. May they all rot in eternal damnation for claiming to speak for God, and for using 'God" as a political tool.
Right on, Atrios!
And good for you for talking about this. Since most atheists don't belong to atheist groups, it looks like there are many more religionists - but I bet there's alot more of us than anybody realizes. We should all freely state our atheism whenever we can!
It IS truly appalling - a college friend's wife said "I could never vote for an atheist" not realizing that my boyfriend and I are atheists. And even after we pointed it out, she refused to admit she was a bigot.
Here's the real problem - religionists behave themselves so they're not punished by supernatural forces. They can't IMAGINE that somebody could be good for the sake of goodness. Therefore, they figure, anybody who doesn't believe in a god can't possibly be good.
...wish I could remember the lyrics to XTC's "Dear God" about now.
I was actually hoping you were going to go for the jugular, here...religion plays SUCH a major role in all of this idiocy. The way that US public opinion has been manipulated via religion is fricking astounding, so much so that one's tempted to do the opiate of the masses quote, although one won't.
My personal take on all of this has been that 9/11 shoulda been, and should still be, interpreted as Childhood's End. As in, okay, folks, here is proof that it's time to put away childish belief and trust in the Great Cloud Being and realize that WE hold our continued existence in our hands. That, sure, if you wanna believe in all of this nonsense, fine, do so, whatever...but that if we are to continue as a race, we'd better begin to act atheistically in a political sense really fucking quick, and realize that nobody has more intrinsic value because they believe in the right God than anyone else. I know we've declared manifest destiny dead quite a few times now, but we need to stake it through its malodorous heart once and for all, because it keeps coming back and fucking with us. (And, yes, I *am* watching an old Buffy DVD right now; why do you ask?)
And, truthfully? I really think that we oughtta work towards not believing in all of this nonsense, period. It'd be a golden age.
Imagine.
it's that kind of hostility that keeps freedom alive in this country.
civility was over with when people started using patriotism and their spooky invisible cloud being shit as social wedges.
we all have our horror stories of interacting with the nuttily religious -- particularly those of us who live in the more religious areas (thank god, i do not).
atrios nails the bottom-line quite clearly: keep your fucking religion to yourself. and stop trying to use it as a crying towel to get the upper hand on the rest of us.
You rock, bwana.
Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word. Very advanced witnessing techniques are needed for these grouches. Let the adults handle them.
From one of my posts on creationism.
I am a non-practising Catholic, which means that I was brought up in the Catholic tradition and never renounced the faith, and I absolutely hate it when people start using religion politically. Religion is a private thing that is supposed to enrich you. It is not a tool to suppress others. So, fire away, Atrios. You have my blessing 
Yes, but first we have to win this goddamn election.
I've always thought that "fundamentalist" was a misnomer. The people that are defined as "fundamentalist" tend to engage in actions that go against what their religion truly teaches.
I've also observed that those that preach the most vociferously also tend to be the ones that don't let their actions fit their words.
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."
Godless heathens.
Not even people, really.
They should be persecuted, then prosecuted, and then executed.
Jude,
Those things may still exist in a religion free world, but thinking they are doing the lord's work does give the perpetrators a uniquely sweeping justification for their actions because it appeals to ultimate and irrefutable causality in the minds of the faithful. I think that is qualitatively different from other ideologies.
On the other hand, no religion means missing out on a lot of really good Mahalia Jackson songs.
Brown skinned man, I disagree.
Some fundamentalists are sincere, committed Christians. My own dear mother comes to mind.
I'm not a Christian; in fact, I'm not religious at all. However, I saw what her religion meant to her, and I would never, ever, EVER denounce all fundamentalist Christians (which are not the same as evangelical Christians) as frauds. She was not the most enlightened person in the world, it's true. But she was kind and compassionate, and really thought that being "saved" meant eternal bliss--something that she wanted everyone to have. She didn't want to see a single person condemned to an eternity of suffering.
You can mock the belief structure as illogical (which all belief structures are if you do not accept the starting premises), but you cannot simply categorically denounce all fundamentalists or evangelicals as hypocrites.
Interestingly, medical research now suggests that extreme religiosity is difficult to differentiate from temporal lobe epilepsy; i.e., religion is an inborn brain defect. See http://tinyurl.com/2mbmc for details.
Does this mean our nation was settled, to a large degree, by mental defectives, and that its current situation is a genetically ordained? It could explain why Europe is so much more secular--outmigration from the gene pool.
Heart warming.
A wise old cowboy told me many many years ago "when you see some son-of-a bitch prayin' over food and speaking of Gawd stay the hell away from him. If you do get close be sure and keep one had loose and free cause you're gonna have to cover hour ass hole sooner or later.
Like George Carlin, I worship the sun, since I can see it and millions of hours of repeatable scientific research has proven that the sun is reponsible for not only the formation of our planet, but every single organism on it. Took a few billion years instead of a week, but the principle is the same.
I pray to Joe Pesci. I wouldn't presume to pray to the sun, it would be rude.
Adam-- that is a very good point. People tend to think that "fundamentalism" means going back to something that existed in the past. In fact, it is a very modern phenomenon, and needs to be dealt with as such.
...I meant to say "and the pope they rode in on...."
Sorry!
I really think that we oughtta work towards not believing in all of this nonsense, period. It'd be a golden age.
I'm gonnna sound like a broken record here, but this is important to me and I want to get it as clear as I can.
People are irrational. Period. They put complete faith in things without having any logocal reason to do so. Putting faith in science, for instance, can just as easily lead to Auschwitz or mutant forms of smallpox as to a "golden age." Our problem isn't systems of belief; our problems are a) lack of compassion, and b) lack of humility. Both of which, I might add, are things that only religious terminology can describe adequately.
Michigander - interesting point. I've always wondered how it was the Puritans have stuck around all these centuries.
And I'm hostile to people who expect me to care about what it says in their arbitrarily-chosen book. Jesus, they make me so mad.
"Know Jesus, Know Peace. No Jesus, No Peace." Man, I hate that bumper sticker.
...I meant to say "and the pope they rode in on...."
Sorry!
Nancy,
Right on. Some Christians behave because they think GAWD is gonna either reward them if they're good or punish them if they're bad. Whenever I've confronted with the old "you can't have a moral center without religion," I ask my ideological opponent if s/he believes the above dichotomy. If s/he says yes, I tell him/her if the only reason you're good is because you expect either divine punishment or heavenly goodies, you really ain't a good person.
Religious folks who're good people - and there are a whole passle of them, don't think otherwise - ain't good because of religion. They're just good people.
You also seem rather hostile towards public figures who don't choose to commit poltical suicide, and hand power to the MBFs. Political realities, whaddyagunnado?
...wish I could remember the lyrics to XTC's "Dear God" about now.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Can I get an Amen!
Philalethes, amen! You are forgetting 'grace', another important aspect.
adam 4-4-2:
It's not the religion, it's the practitioners.
...
I guess this is a variation of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
hoist on your own petard...
I agree that people should keep it private, not use it in the government like this administration is doing.
Just some extreme forms of religion I don't agree with: Catholics (not letting the priests marry, copulate), Forms of protestantism (not letting gays become Bishop), Amish/Hutterite (women are persecuted in this religion, I met a Hutterite woman who told me secretly she hated being in the community), Muslim (a woman faced death by stoning because she had a child out of wedlock; hiding women in cloth, separation of sexes in countries like Saudi Arabia), other religions that value boys over girls (China, who had just recently stated that they would give a couple more money and benefits if they keep their girl)....
I like the idea of Buddhism... peace.
Disclosure: I'm a former Roman Catholic and my parents came from Northern Ireland after the troubles and my mother (who was a Catholic-boarding-school-educated woman avoiding certain streets because they were Protestant) married my father (whose own mother told my mother that she would never darken her doorstep again, Protestant) in Nigeria, Africa (because they couldn't get married in Northern Ireland because the churches wouldn't marry them).
As much as religion is a pacifier for people, a thing for people to find comfort in, I hate it when religion is used to make rules in this country, religion is evident in the markings of government currency I carry. I don't like it when people throw their religion on me with reckless abandon. I don't get the "saved" like Mel Gibson or the "born again" like George W. Bush, but then I'll never get the ideology of religion and politics.
Ok, I'm always consistently about 5 minutes behind the threads (Which is an eternity in Eschaton time.) A couple threads down, Scorpio posted a really great point that should be made. Loudly.
I would love it if the government could tax *any* property used for political purposes within the US, including church halls where political action meetings are held.
My response, while not as elegant as the original point is this:
Why the hell not? In the mid-sixties, the Sierra Club lost its tax exempt status because it decided that flooding the Grand Canyon with an oversize damn dam was a bad idea. Well, if our politicos at one point decided that the Grand Canyon did not meet their definition of "sacredness" then why the hell should any man made church be exempt from taxes. After all, any god-fearing lunatic can build a church, but only God can make a Grand Canyon.
It feels immensely stupid to be sliding back into the "dark ages" and the devine right of kings, but that is exactly what we are doing. There are a lot of politically powerful people trying to put a stop to the enlightenment, age of reason, (in other words, progressive movement) because they can't stand the light. The world is changing too fast for them, the only way that they feel they can slow it down is to blow it up and be raptured back to the fetal position. Good luck, I think you folks are the ones who will be "left behind."
In many if not most cases, it is actually easier to come out of the closet as a gay or lesbian in this country today than as an atheist. Since I'm both lesbian and atheist, and have discussed this with other queer non-believers, I know that for a fact. Maybe we non-believers need a Selma or a Stonewall to get some motion in the movement.
BTW, for me "agnostic" was a hedge -- I don't hide behind it anymore.
I had no idea ghwb was such a facist too.But it makes no difference if poppy said it weather preacher george said it,he believes the same thing and would exterminate the lot of us athiests if it could get him a vote or two.I too am tired of the RR always complaining that us athiests are out to ruin their country.when in reality we could care less(untill now).I find this kind of bull to be of the highest order.In terms of heathonism.I find this kind of intolerance to be opposite of what i believed religion to be.How can a group of individuals(christans) colaborate on a philosophy of hate and intolerance.Do we live in the dark ages again or are we on the path toward a higher level of discrimination and condemnation?When the worlds religions all have one thing in common,the belief in a power that they believe will take them to a new life,we live in a delusional relaity and now it's time we put this deluaion to rest and have all the nonbelievers come out of the woodwork and let the world know that it doesnt have to be this way.
Are all the really good bloggers brights (Atrios and Kos)? If so, why don't I have their readership? Answer: my blog sucks.
That said, I love knowing that the godless aren't alone in this country, and they tend to be truer patriots than the most whole of the bible-beaters put together.
What a surprisingly ignorant post from you, Atrios. The incident in question was not from "some comedian on some radio show," it was from program hosts on Air America, which has marketed itself as existing solely for the purpose of representing the views of the left on American talk radio. This was not Jay Leno--this was on a network that is ostensibly hoping to boost the fortunes of Democratic/liberal candidates in coming elections. And mocking Christianity is just a stupid thing to do if that's the goal.
Nobody's asking you, Atrios, to "reach out" to Christians. What intelligent "liberalish" Christians like Amy Sullivan want is for liberals to stop MOCKING Christianity. Because it's stupid, counterproductive, and infuriating, since we know that our ideals as liberals come much closer to matching the ideals of Jesus and Christianity than do those of conservatives. And yet we can't gain the ground we should with this demographic, in part because of this perceived hostility of the left towards their religion. Even minor inroads among moderate Christians down here in the South will be a devastating blow to the Republican Party, and to anti-tax cretins like Grover Norquist. And we don't even have to sacrifice our ideals to reach them; we just have to stop alienating them.
The surest key to future Democratic success--particularly in the South--is to continue what was begun last fall by the conservative governor of Alabama--to hammer away at the disconnect between "Christian ideals" and regressive taxation championed by the right. The first try failed, but the blueprint is there, and it will work if we wise up.
our problems are a) lack of compassion, and b) lack of humility. Both of which, I might add, are things that only religious terminology can describe adequately.
Why do we require the belief in some big Daddy in the sky to describe this? I honestly don't see it.
Interestingly, medical research now suggests that extreme religiosity is difficult to differentiate from temporal lobe epilepsy; i.e., religion is an inborn brain defect. See http://tinyurl.com/2mbmc for details.
wow Michigander. That is an interesting bit of info.
Well said! *applause*
The benefit of the scientific worldview is that it makes no claims on morality. Science by definition attempts to test statements about facts. So science could NOT just as easily justify aushwitz unless it is abused in the context of one or another ideological system.
Atrios, well said. The old saw "It's not God that I fear, it's his followers that get to me" , yow! The hypocrisy is soooo overwhelming. It is interesting to have conversations with the evangelical types, who want no less than to help you see the light, but only their version of "the light". The very best observation I gleaned from the link was the hypocrisy of Bush the elder railing about rooting out bigotry, while being one of the most prominent examples available. Sheesh.
Lets take a step back here and look at the big picture. Can't you see what Bush is doing? Do you REALLY think he thought he could get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Oh course not. What he was doing was sending a message that Republicans are the moral party. They think they are morally superior for not supporting abortion, and think every one of us liberals get blow jobs from interns.
People, this is a very VERY effective way of attracting votes from people who are generally disillusioned by politics. This is how they get votes from poor and middle class voters.
Kerry's got to stop with the abortion talk, the separation of church and state talk. 'When the house is burning, you don't remodel'
Lets take a step back here and look at the big picture. Can't you see what Bush is doing? Do you REALLY think he thought he could get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Oh course not. What he was doing was sending a message that Republicans are the moral party. They think they are morally superior for not supporting abortion, and think every one of us liberals get blow jobs from interns.
People, this is a very VERY effective way of attracting votes from people who are generally disillusioned by politics. This is how they get votes from poor and middle class voters.
Kerry's got to stop with the abortion talk, the separation of church and state talk. 'When the house is burning, you don't remodel'
A resounding right on to that one. What sickens me even more is the revived practice of 'Tithing' amongst fundamentalist churches. You remember tithing,when a church member donates... say 10%+.. off the top of his annual earnings for Jesus, it was on that little post-it-note Martin Luther left up on a German church door a few hundred years ago. Worst of all, do you think all that cash goes into 501(c) Church Groups to feed the poor hudled masses? Meanwhile guess who is pressuring the FEC for an exemption for political activities by 501(c) groups. Coincidence maybe, the most unadulterated mix of church & state since the Borgia papacy, more likely.
There is good news though, American history has seen a series of 'Great Revivals' of religous fervor, e.g. Jonathan Edwards, or Prohibition. Usually it takes about a decade or so for folks to remove their heads from their asses. People will eventually lighten up, but this whole "End Times" song & dance which seems to be driving this 'revival' has got to play it self out. Hell, I think that would be a great way to nail W. Get him to publically admit he believes in the "end times". Headline: "In Case Of Rapture this Nuklear Button Will Be Unmanned". Almost as good as LBJ's daisy commerical.
I think the Social Darwinist movement circa 1912 is the best example of atheist absolutism with a body count.
Non Tibi Spiro: I forgot grace 'cause...well, I just did. Anyway, my point (if I haven't made it) is that absolutism is the problem. Same deal with Left vs. Right...you can be a sane, humble, rational conservative, or an absolutist lft-wing maniac. By their works, ye shall know them. And the fundies stink to high heaven regardless of their beliefs. If they were Marxists, they'd be the worst, most rigid, most insufferable Marxists imaginable.
Thank you,
As a quaker, I get all kinds of dirty looks (comments) from religous Heathers here in Texas. Unfortunately it's against my religion to punch them in the nose, but your rant felt almost as good.
>White Christian Males pretending that they're the persecuted ones
Exactly. They hold all the power and yet they have the public believing that they're at the mercy of some fake powerful anti-religious movement?
Actually they are in a sense because they are trying to mix religion and politics. When people attempt that you will hear outcry from anyone who is a real patriot and understands why we and every other western democracy were founded with a strict seperation of church and state in our constitutions.
Secondly, I whole-heartedly agree the the religious should watch their own. They have an in with their similar belief system. They can speak each other's language. Why should a random atheist be the one to go up to a xtian (who will naturally be suspicious of his intentions) to change his mind? Xtians should be helping Xtians fight for a better tomorrow and not fall for the GOP lies and all the abuses done in the name of religion.
The left in general wants religion to prosper, but not as a political force. I think progressive people want to finally solve the spiritual/rational issue. Ideally, spritual concerns should never intersect with government nor should they violate human rights. Christian scientists should not be allowed to let their children bleed to death and Jehovah's witnesses should not be allowed to let their children die because they are against blood transfusions.
Its so simple, yet this is a power struggle. The religious organizations in the US have a political arm, much like religious organizations in the middle east have a political or terrorist arm. These structures are unneeded in a democracy and can only hurt it.
We've already lost our stem cell edge. We're losing out technology edge due to restrictive "anti-terrorism" policies. Now we're going to continue down the damned path of theocracy because no public figure is willing to step up to the religious lobbyists and say "We don't want you here. Religion and Politics should never mix."
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either.
what you say is near why i stopped goin to church. that and the awful music.
Agnostic is not a hedge. It simply means you don't have any evidence for the existence of God. If strong evidence were presented to me that God existed, I would believe in him. I haven't seen any evidence, so I don't. That makes me, and probably most atheists, an agnostic by T. H. Huxley's original definition of the term.
I'm 100% behind Atrios on this. Completely.
Except, I am hostile to religion.
OT:
I'm waiting for the bloodshed to start in Fallujah again.
What a clusterfuck.
Listen to the rhetoric, here:
From NYT:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 23 -- The American authorities increased the pressure on besieged insurgents in the Sunni Muslim stronghold of Falluja on Friday with a series of blunt warnings that if they did not lay down their arms, United States soldiers would attack within days.
A senior Bush administration official in Washington said that although a decision had not been made to attack pending a final round of negotiations, "there isn't much time left." He said the administration felt a sense of urgency because the insurgents had turned over only outdated weapons and because Falluja faced an imminent human crisis, with residents in dire need of food and medicine.
"Our patience is not eternal," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief spokesman for the American-led military command in Baghdad.
The American warnings came as L. Paul Bremer III, chief of the American occupation authority, delivered a stark television address on Friday in which he declared that "Iraq faces a choice" and that the American plan to bring stability and democracy here might not succeed unless ordinary Iraqis come quickly to its defense.
"If you do not defend your beloved country, it will not be saved," he said.
Mr. Bremer's 20-minute speech marked his first substantial comments to Iraqis since the worst violence of the yearlong occupation erupted late last month, with the deaths of some 100 American troops, attacks on supply convoys, kidnappings and killings of foreigners and the announced withdrawal of 2,000 troops from three allied countries.
As American officials spoke of a looming confrontation in Falluja, Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy enlisted by President Bush to help put together a plan for an Iraqi government, warned that any military action would be counterproductive. "When you surround a city, you bomb the city, when people cannot go to hospital, what name do you have for that?" Mr. Brahimi said in an interview with George Stephanopoulos in Paris for the ABC News program "This Week," to be broadcast Sunday. "And you, if you have enemies there, this is exactly what they want you to do, to alienate more people so that more people support them rather than you."
He added, "I very much hope -- I don't know all what is happening now -- but in this situation, there is no military solution."
[snip]
Vice President Dick Cheney, while he did not mention Falluja in a political appearance in Kansas City, Mo., listed terror attacks in Karbala, Najaf, and Baghdad, as well as other cities of the world, in a broader warning of American resolve in the global campaign against terrorists.
"Such an enemy cannot be deterred, cannot be contained, cannot be appeased, or negotiated with," he said. "
jk, I'm reading through a book right now entitled "The Science of Good and Evil" And apparently, there is a lot science can say about why we are moral. A great read. The author is Michael Shermer. If you are interested, check it out.
but you cannot simply categorically denounce all fundamentalists or evangelicals as hypocrites.
Oh yes I can.It is just these kind of people,whoever goodhearted they may be,that are tuned into the 700 club,or watching fox news or attending Oral Roberts university.Why else do we have so many institutions named after religious figureheads and/or religious followings(ie,southern methodist university and the like).It is these people who further the aims fo the extremists that are the root causes of the fundimentalism we see today.
Dont say that none of the fundies are good and warmhearted in every sense of the word because they are the ones who want everyone converted to their faith.Arrogance is the result from this kind of thinking.
adam: If used correctly, religion does much positive. Religion in of itself is neutral.
Oh please, clearly the dogma of religion stems from its scriptures. Arguably, those drawn to religion are drawn because it is inherently conservative. In other words, the practitioners join and remain members because the religion reinforces and justifies their bigotry and hate.
Lets take a step back here and look at the big picture. Can't you see what Bush is doing? Do you REALLY think he thought he could get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Oh course not. What he was doing was sending a message that Republicans are the moral party. They think they are morally superior for not supporting abortion, and think every one of us liberals get blow jobs from interns.
People, this is a very VERY effective way of attracting votes from people who are generally disillusioned by politics. This is how they get votes from poor and middle class voters.
Kerry's got to stop with the abortion talk, the separation of church and state talk. 'When the house is burning, you don't remodel'
The benefit of the scientific worldview is that it makes no claims on morality.
Which becomes a weakness in some circumstances.
So science could NOT just as easily justify aushwitz unless it is abused in the context of one or another ideological system.
Or unless there's not enough information to make a rational conclusion. Besides, science DID justify Auschwitz (Google "Pioneer Fund," please).
Improving the gene pool? That ring any bells? Look, science is incomplete at this moment (it probably always will be). We have to make moral judgments whle the work of science continues...we can't wait for science to "prove" Auschwitz wrong. But we all have strong ideas about right and wrong nonetheless...even in the absence of proof. Thus, religion.
>>The surest key to future Democratic success--particularly in the South--is to continue what was begun last fall by the conservative governor of Alabama--to hammer away at the disconnect between "Christian ideals" and regressive taxation championed by the right. The first try failed, but the blueprint is there, and it will work if we wise up.
When hell freezes over?
Dan: Kerry started the abortion talk? the separation of church and state talk?
When was that?
Well said Atrios.If everything about religous belief was correct except the everlasting life bit,I wonder what would happen.
the practitioners join and remain members because the religion reinforces and justifies their bigotry and hate.
That explain Dietrich Boenhoeffer, alright. And liberation theology. Sheesh.
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, religion is the first refuge of a coward -- someone so afraid of themselves and their infinitesimally small place in the universe that they will cling to a myth to give themselves meaning and make themselves important. Living a lie does not give meaning to life. If they find comfort in believing in a fairy tale, I think they're wrong, but it is their business. But if they insist that I believe in the fairy tale and use the power of the state to coerce me, then fuck 'em and fuck 'em deeply.
God told me to hate you.
The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool.
I've been waiting to hear someone say this in the public arena. As a devote atheist, the church/state separation is my primary issue. I usually keep my beliefs to myself. I won't try to convert you if you don't try to convert me. Bush has changed my mind. I've become evangelical in my atheism. Secularists are not second class citizens. Anyone who bases their opinion on the Israel/Palestine conflict on the notion of The Rapture needs to be institutionalized.
Smalfish, I'm on your side, but if you call my mother a hypocrite, I will punch you in the face.
Seriously.
No, Chrississippi. Two southern Republican governors--Tennessee and Alabama--have tried it in the last three years now. It's coming.
I am at Mass and I take communion every Sunday. Cheap public piety destroys everything my faith means to me. If I'm not working to help other people, I'm not following Jesus. The one thing that enraged Jesus was people using religion to put other people down and to justify cruelty. Believe me, I love my faith and my country. No damn right winger is going to take either away from me.
Since I found "Bob", I'm my own hero--and hers too.
Here's the problem: the religionists claim god-commands as the transcendent source for moral direction. We non-religionists tend to position ourselves as merely against the god-commands. What moral direction do we offer? What is the source of our values? Are these values god-based? or human- and experience-based? Do we Have a Dream? A vision of a just and generous world?
If so, why don't we fight for it?
It's time for us to put out a human-centered definition of morality that engages the questions that religious people want answers to.
Phila: I agree with just about everything you except that the end should be "thus: ethics."
We don't need to believe in sky-daddies to behave well to one another. If you read the really committed anarchists and socialists, you see a level of ethical thought that we really could use these days.
Science is not the world. It is simply one way to look at the world. An ethical framework is required; religion is not.
"I think the Social Darwinist movement circa 1912 is the best example of atheist absolutism with a body count."
There is a "faith" aspect to social darwinism, too. Namely, the belief that that which is observable in nature is morally good. Without that bit of dogma the facts of Darwinism have no connection to morality. No God, but still appeals to an external standard against which to judge human morality.
That's a good article, but I was under the impression that Einstein spent his last years reviving his faith. Perhaps I need to read up on that again.
You must have slack.
Just wanted to say Amen to those who affirm the ability of religion/religious people to work in destructive AND constructive ways. Also wanted to put in a plug for _The Ambivalence of the Sacred_ for precisely this point. I'm a liberal Catholic (convert from Southern Baptist, no less), and I find wide-sweeping generalizations about "fundamentalists" a little distressing--maybe it's because I know those are likely the people I grew up with (and at times, the people inhabiting the house I grew up in). But anyway, my ultimate point was that as much as "fundamentalists" confound the brain, maybe we shouldn't write them off completely. I agree that in general "fundamentalist" politics are wrong-headed as far as the big picture of Christianity goes, and I can't say that I'm sure that much can be done to change lots of fundamentalist minds, but I think it oughta be a goal at least. I dunno. Just wanted to express my own ambivalence...
Virginia, our vision is the same as Jesus Christ--do no harm.
Although I'm a non-believer, I'm still a follower of Jesus's philosophy of love and tolerance.
Ekk - somehow I posted my last message three times - sorry 'bout that.
from www.2think.org/hii/atheism.shtml
"When you break down the word agnostic, you come up with a term meaning "without knowledge" or "unknowable". The word agnostic isn't a very old word. Despite this fact, T.H. Huxley, who created the term, used it to mean our modern definition of 'scientist' more than anything else. The word has changed meaning over the years, and people have tended to use the term as a sort of middle ground between atheism and theism. In my opinion, such a middle ground doesn't exist. One either asserts that there is a god or they lack such an assertion. Agnostics have labeled themselves as such because they don't understand the definition of atheism or because they have heard only about the 'strong atheists' who do make a positive assertion that there is no god and they don't personally hold such a strong assertion."
It's time for us to put out a human-centered definition of morality that engages the questions that religious people want answers to.
Thus spake Virginia. She's right, too. That's the exact problem. In every society on earth, it's possible to make a moral distinction between aggressor and victim. Why?
The trouble with God is He's incompetent. One of His most important products--religion--is a defective product unreasonable dangerous in the hands of its known and intended users. The religions we have (all God-given) are regularly used as a justification for cruelty. God should be sued for product liability. Atheists are fine, but we need more contratheists.
This has been sticking in my craw all day. How DARE a Cardinal of the Catholic Church urge priests to deny Eucharist to politicians like John Kerry? I'm a practicing Catholic and I've got one thing to say to these jokers running our church - If you are going to deny Eucharist to elected officials who support abortion, then, keeping in mind our Church's social teachings, deny Eucharist to those who support the death penalty, those who refuse to pass bills to help the poor, the children, the elderly (hello, health care!), the disenfranchised of our country (read: gays, lesbians, people with AIDS, etc. etc.), who refuse to pass bills to protect the environment, who are so narrow-minded politically that they refuse to care for the common good... ARRRGGHHH!
Let me tell you, boys of the Vatican, either it's everything or nothing. Hypocrites.
(thanks, I feel better.)
The prophet makes a philosophical statement. The people respond. They organize a church to follow the teachings of the prophet.
But here is where the wheels come off the bus. The church then must define itself from all the other churches. It then develops the "us against them" attitude, and connects sin to leaving the fold. The original prophet's religious clarity is lost.
I feel that where churches have gone wrong and why we are having this frighteningly fundamentalist wave around the world and in every religion is this desire to violently proclaim how the specific church is different and therefore right and better than all the others. The voices have become louder and ruder as more opinions join in. Wars in the name of religion are going to consume the world.
Churches are not religious. They are a business. People are religious and this is being used against them.
jk,
You beat me to it. I consider myself an agnostic because, frankly, logic tells me its equally impossible to prove there is no god as it is to prove there is a good. You can't prove something that, by its very nature, obscures any attempts at proof. Any sort of creator force would be beyond the scope of human comprehension, as it's something that would have to be beyond the scope of reality as we know it.
Equally, it's impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no god for the very same reason. It would require looking beyond the fabric of reality, which we're incapable of doing currently. Maybe some day, if the anti-science religious types don't get there way.
Which leads into why some - not all, of course - religious types are so anti science. Faith and belief exist without proof. You don't have to have solid material evidence to believe in something or have faith in something. Provide that solid material evidence, and faith evaporates. Essentially, they're worried we might learn something that'd make them uncomfortable.
Ekk - somehow I posted my last message three times - sorry 'bout that.
from www.2think.org/hii/atheism.shtml
"When you break down the word agnostic, you come up with a term meaning "without knowledge" or "unknowable". The word agnostic isn't a very old word. Despite this fact, T.H. Huxley, who created the term, used it to mean our modern definition of 'scientist' more than anything else. The word has changed meaning over the years, and people have tended to use the term as a sort of middle ground between atheism and theism. In my opinion, such a middle ground doesn't exist. One either asserts that there is a god or they lack such an assertion. Agnostics have labeled themselves as such because they don't understand the definition of atheism or because they have heard only about the 'strong atheists' who do make a positive assertion that there is no god and they don't personally hold such a strong assertion."
That's a good article, but I was under the impression that Einstein spent his last years reviving his faith. Perhaps I need to read up on that again.
Most 20th century atom physicists believed in God towards the end of their careers. The math and science they worked with was simply too beautiful for it to be an accident.
Don't you guys think that atheism is a religion also? To me it takes religious faith to be an atheist: Faith that there is no God.
I'm not an atheist, not an agnostic. I believe in God but I think God expresses itself through beautiful things like math and science, art, love, friendship...
There is a "faith" aspect to social darwinism, too.
Of course! There's a faith aspect to all teleological constructs, atheism included (as the Huxley anecdote upthread demonstrates). But human beings are teleologically minded creatures, by and large.
We care about bombs falling on Iraqis and US soldiers being killed and wounded. Why?
I can't remember who said it; nor, can I remember the exact phrase, but it goes something like "the problem with true believers is not their beliefs, but all the rest of the things their beliefs don't allow them to believe."
Look, "spiritual" -- fine. "Religious," by its very definition means that you accept an organized dogma that is resistant to change, individual interpretation, and new information that challenges your foundation. The farther toward "religious" that you move, the less facts, evidence, different perspectives mean to you. That means you are much more likely to be an idealogue on any issue, much more likely to be racist, etc.
I can accept that kind of willful ignorance most days, because people compartmentalize and rationalize and a religious engineer can still pay enough attention to facts to build a safe bridge on most days. But, when you are a cynical, manipulative son of a bitch like either one of the Bush presidents -- either without a spiritual bone in their bodies -- then you are just using religous people's inherent prejudices for their own ends.
Religous cloaks, tied to a strong moral, humanistic set of values are dangerous enough; the cloak masking a power mad, amoral, cynical soul is just scary. But the foundation that all you good religous people -- who I would probably agree with on most political issues -- provide the platform for the cynical fake religous types like Bush(es).
For the record, I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic who thinks that there are certain questions we will probably never have a satisfactory answer to. "Science" will fail to answer these questions, and religion will require faith to answer them.
From your blog to God's ears....
Balisardo, that is a great point. I've always argued on these boards, very seriously, that Jesus was (is) a liberal. I've argued this as a very committed agnostic. (I know that seems like a contradiction, but I have no trouble with it.) When liberalism was at its most vigorous, particularly during the civil rights movement. The Christian Church was an invaluable force for compassionate social change.
But you should know that this argument goes both ways. Where is the voice of Christian liberalism these days? If it is important for liberals to recognize Christianity as an important force for humanity, why is it not also important for Christians to recognize liberalism as an important force for morality. At least liberals have some recognition of the social destruction that greed has caused in our society. Judge not too harshly, my friend, lest ye be judged by the same measures.
Wonderful post. As Newdow (Plaintiff in the 'under god' case) recently implied in his argument before SCOTUS, Atheists are a discriminated class. Atheism/Agnosticism aren't seen as religious beliefs, and that's where the problem lies. Christians (in the aggregate) ignorantly and simply believe that if you're an atheist/agnostic then you're ripe for conversion on the assumption that the atheist/agnostic hasn't given the matter enough thought. While many people truly haven't given the matter of religion much thought, self identifying atheists and agnostics *have* given the matter thought. Indeed, *much* thought in most cases - as the process of identifying oneself as such involves a conscious rationalizing progression that doesn't involve 'faith'. Christian leaders publicly play nice with the other major religions and wouldn't dare 'witness' or engage them in theoretical arguments, but yet they see atheists and agnostics as potential marks, and afford the beliefs held by them no respect. And of course, it's even worse than that - most Christians equate atheists as lesser moral beings even. This is where the education has to occur - Godlessness is simply an alternative religious belief, not a negation of yours, and further, is not symptomatic of evil.
In every society on earth, it's possible to make a moral distinction between aggressor and victim. Why?
Even in the animal world, believe it or not. "Ethical" behavior has been observed in primates (e.g. about sharing of food). I have no time to go into this further, have to leave this very interesting thread, but it sure makes the why-question even more fascinating. Anyway, good night and happy continuation.
Balisardo: I'd love to think that tax reform was going to come to the South on wings of fundamental Protestants, but the truth of the whole movement has next to nothing to do with Christian teaching. It has everything to do with race.
That is the reason it ain't ever gonna happen.
ot, but: A New Pentagon Papers Case - Newspapers, Blogs and the Diebold/Jones Day Memos
Ernest Miller sez: Last Tuesday it was revealed that Diebold was informed by its lawyers that using uncertified e-voting software in California was probably illegal. Where did this information come from? Leaked legal memos from Diebold's law firm, Jones Day. Last Tuesday afternoon a judge ordered that all documents not already published on the internet be returned to Jones Day. But, if you can't stop newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, why can you stop a newspaper from publishing memos dealing with important issues regarding voting equipment? Perhaps the lesson for newspapers is that if you think the public should be informed, publish as much as possible and don't try to hold back information for 'exclusives.'" http://www.corante.com/importanc...ves/
003325.html
Philalethes, I don't think we disagree that much (and yes I know about eugenics, the pioneer fund, the bell curve etc. etc. ad nauseum). My only point is that science, by its very definition, is separate from ethics and cannot be used to justify behavior unless plugged into a larger moral system. Even if science were to demonstrate biological differences in intelligence (which, before I get flamed, it most certainly has NOT, and personally, I'm not really interested in knowing the answer to that question and find the asking of it rather distasteful) it doesn't tell you what to do with the information. Garret Hardin calls the tendency to justify "ought" with "is" the Naturalistic Fallacy, and yes, it's damnably widespread, but not a bad reflection on science, rather on those who wield it for political ends.
Go Atrios!
Much as I want to think that religion is a force for good, the more seriously people take it, the more likely they have . . . not even no moral compass . . . more like one that points the wrong way. (Agnostics, after all, aren't the ones who burn witches, gun down OB/GYNs in front of their own kids, intentionally fly into buildings, insist that we go to Muslim countries to forcibly convert them to Christianity, slaughter Jews, slaughter Protestants, slaughter Muslims, slaughter Hindus . . . the list is enormous, isn't it?) I think it's because so much fundamentalist (of any stripe) dogma goes against decency and good sense-- then insists on supplanting it (which is what they seem to mean by "faith").
(For one thing, there's that weird after-life bribery thing: Join our religion, not because it's compassionate or seems logical, but because we can get you the best set-up after you assume room temperature, plus any other selection will have you rotting in Hell. How do they get people to believe this stuff?)
(Or a Creator who actually gives a rat's ass about self-abuse. Or how you spend your Sundays. Or your prayers.) (More to the point, how come every Holy Joe's ears aren't continually ringing with some variant of "That is the stupidest freaking thing I've ever heard"?)
You don't have to have solid material evidence to believe in something or have faith in something.
Yeah...string theory, for instance!
Not trying to make anyone mad. I just think the paradoxes involved are interesting. And some of the "strong atheist" stuff (religious people are stupid, cowardly idiots!) seems as knee-jerk and nutsy as Falwell and his ilk. But to reaffirm, I agree strongly with Atrios' post, and with most of these comments.
Wow, imagine a world where it's OK to be a liberal AND an atheist ...
I, for one, am tired of people calling this a Christian country. Just because the Founding Fathers happened to be Christians does not make this a Christian country.
If we would really practice what we preach, there would be no religion in public life. Religion is by its very nature antithetical to the concept of equality, since it is a series of mutually exclusive clubs, each of which assumes a superiority over others which do not subscribe to its particular beliefs (and of course, each one assumes its beliefs are right and all the others are wrong).
i once had someone ask me: if there were no religion, where would morality come from? Sort of the William Jennings Bryan approach. I almost hit the ceiling. Since when does having a conscience and knowing the difference between right and wrong have anything to do with religion?
The Golden Rule shows up in all religions. If we would strip away all the superstitions and apply that one simple tenet, the world would be a much more pleasant place to live in.
There is no "faith" involved in atheism or agnostism. As I said, faith is the deeply held belief in what you cannot prove by any means. Atheists and agnostics don't feverently believe in the lack of a god; they merely take reality as it is, find out as much as they can about it, and shape their opinions thusly.
To even suggest atheism or agnosticism are "faiths" is to show a profound lack of knowledge concerning both the meanings or the words and the basic tennents of the philosophies.
If there really were a God, everyone in the War Crimes regime would experience his/her head exploding at just about the same time this God sent a lightning bolt into the RNC.
""Science" will fail to answer these questions, and religion will require faith to answer them." I have more faith in science than you. I think everything is ultimately explainable. The human mind might not be able to grasp the complexions of the explanation, but that doesn't mean a scientific explanation doesn't exist.
Not trying to make anyone mad. I just think the paradoxes involved are interesting. And some of the "strong atheist" stuff (religious people are stupid, cowardly idiots!) seems as knee-jerk and nutsy as Falwell and his ilk.
Exactly.
I, for one, am tired of people calling this a Christian country. Just because the Founding Fathers happened to be Christians does not make this a Christian country.
One little secret the fundies don't like to talk about is they weren't Christians. They were deists. Huge difference.
11:45 Anonymous was me...
Bush has changed my mind. I've become evangelical in my atheism.
Before Bush came in with his holier than thou attitude I was very much in the athiest closet.I live in the south,the home of the bible belt.Texas to be more specific.I left my believe at my front door when I went out.
Today it has been my experience that I have become more brazen in expressing my beliefs.I still dont want to talk you out of your religion,but if the bushies continue this trend my attitude will change and I will be forced to push back on the grounds of freedom of choice.
I have a 7 year old daughter,my wife is a non praticing baptist.She doesnt pratice because she chooses not to tho I'm under the assumption that she thinks I dont want her to be.If bush lets this go I will let my daughter choose for herself in her religious beliefs(ie,i wont talk about my disbelief),but if bush and the fundies are to continue down this path towards religious anarchy,I will have no choice but to insist she be taught in the ways of darwin much before it should have become necessary.
ellroon, I've often thought that Christianity formed more as a way to differentiate itself, than as Jesus' followings. Many things were done to 'sell' itself to as many people as possible. Like the choice of December 25 to commemorate Jesus' "birthday". They took a pagan fertility holiday to make themselves look more appealing to the Romans and Greeks. There is also some proof that angels and saints have basis in Zorastrianism.
Thank you Atrios for saying what I felt and could not write (couldn't find the words)when I was reading about this issue/concerns at other blogs (Kevin, Electrolite).
I would like to pose the question, does anyone else think our foreign policy toward Israel/Palestine is being driven by this whole messianic "end times" fundamentalism? Seems I cant hold a decent conversation about the matter without "gods chosen people" coming into play.
There is no "faith" involved in atheism or agnostism. As I said, faith is the deeply held belief in what you cannot prove by any means.
But can you prove God doesn't exist?If you can't, I think that's a form of faith.
After all, atheism is a belief that there is no God. Period.
Darwin wasn't always an unbeliever...started his education along the path of an Anglican priest. And also, his gradual move toward disbelief was precipitated more by personal loss than by any supposed incompatibility between his naturalistic explanation of the origin of species and Christian belief.
Philalethes,
Well, even though string theory is still in the theoretical stage, there's still more proof for it than there is for any sort of creator active in existence's day-to-day affairs. String theory hasn't been observed yet, of course - and may never - it does fit enough mathematical models to make it a track worth exploring.
However, even strong proponents of string theory, such as Brian Greene, know they're wading into deep territory and going waaaay out on a limb. That's science, though. Nobody will fight a war if string theory or even quantum mechanics are finally disproved.
And I second Old Hat on the deism of the founders. Trudat.
Egg said it best so far:
spirituality is one's intensely personal walk with the unknown-- religion is its antithesis.
Take a deep look at Life the Universe and Everything for just a couple of minutes and it is impossible not too see how small and insignificant you are, yet how amazingly rich and complex your own experience of everything is.
There is no way to express this sense of wonder. There never has been and never will be. It is forever beyond the reach of mere words.
So, people should really just shut the fuck up about it.
Godless Americans PAC donates to candidates who pledge to maintain the seperation of church and state.
The thread is wearing out at this point, but, golldarnit atrios, you nailed the sucker!
For anyone who is angry about his hostilty toward religion and wants to expound on what a great, fucking, gift it all is I ask you where we would be without the idea of The One True God, with the Right Prophets.
If your answer isn't "not in this fucking mess" you are nutty.
Not only are the paradoxes interesting, Philalethes, I often think that they are the most interesting thing. We all have this set of beliefs that form our personalities, and not all of them coexist very comfortably with one another. Each of us chooses a different pattern of bending them this way and that in order to accomodate them all.
As a wise friend of mine once said after I called somone a hypocrite: "Oh come off it, we're all hypocrites"
Gracchus,
Look here for your answer.
I think we should realize that atheism and agnosticism, like all other ideologies (religious and not) are situated beliefs (situated knowledges--somebody tell me they've heard of this idea before). They cannot and should not be divorced from their contexts. An agnostic in, say, Hattiesburg, Mississippi probably will not have the same conception of agnosticism as a similarly-described person in Portland, Oregon.
Atheists in the Bible Belt will probably be more defensive of their ideas, and more likely to characterize agnostics as "fence-sitters," than atheists in London.
We can't make sweeping statements that we can expect reasonably to apply to all members of any group. The same stricture applies to considerations of religious people.
Simply put: all atheists are not cast from the same mold; neither are all theists.
Nobody's asking you, Atrios, to "reach out" to Christians. What intelligent "liberalish" Christians like Amy Sullivan want is for liberals to stop MOCKING Christianity. Because it's stupid, counterproductive, and infuriating, since we know that our ideals as liberals come much closer to matching the ideals of Jesus and Christianity than do those of conservatives.
I think you just proved his point.
what you say is near why i stopped goin to church. that and the awful music.
I am right there with ya. Those god awful hymns. They all sound like funeral dirges.
And what the hell is this?
Kerry's got to stop with the abortion talk, the separation of church and state talk.
A woman's right to privacy is the law of the land, and the separation of church and state is in the freaking constitution. Let's quit pussyfooting around.
I would love to see a candidate stand up and say, "Religion is a private affair and america is and should be a secular state. Worship who the fuck you want on your own time."
I'm about fed up with religiosity in this country.
OH MY GOD. Ted Koppell just fucking skewered bushco over the coffin issue. He showed the pictures of the coffins and asked "what could be more respectful to the families than showing their loved ones being brought home in flag draped coffins, in reverent full military honors?" then he went onto to make a snide comment about how Bushco didn't think it was appropriate... unless they showed a coffin in a political ad... and he showed footage from the 9/11 commercial, and closed with the "I'm George Bush, and I approved this ad." Brutal.
People who believe in prophecies and miracles are capable of believing anything.
There is no difference between the two major parties when it comes to religion. They both believe in some form of childish fantasy. That's why I don't give a fuck anymore.
Armageddon? Bring it on. Let's roll!
Adam 4-4-2 Yes, that was the beginnings of the Catholic church overrunning and incorporating pagan rituals to take in more people.
But the whole heresy/blasphemy/schism stuff that went on (Eco and his book The Name of the Rose) to try and shift out what was going to stay and what had to be shed was all business and nothing to do with religious truth.
(Think I'm tying myself into a knot here.) Basically I think that churches are dangerous in their turf war brutality.
Religions must be personal and of the heart. Violent upheavals and changes of dogma within the church structure are attempts to keep as many people as possible.
Gracchus,
Sorry, I mean here.
Molly, NYC:
You go, girl!
I especially love the bribery thing ... that sums it up exactly.
"If the FBI's motivating factor for busting down the Koresh compound was child abuse, how come we never see Bradley tanks smashing into Catholic churches?"- Bill Hicks
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, religion is the first refuge of a coward -- someone so afraid of themselves and their infinitesimally small place in the universe that they will cling to a myth to give themselves meaning and make themselves important. Living a lie does not give meaning to life. If they find comfort in believing in a fairy tale, I think they're wrong, but it is their business. But if they insist that I believe in the fairy tale and use the power of the state to coerce me, then fuck 'em and fuck 'em deeply.
But can you prove God doesn't exist?If you can't, I think that's a form of faith.
Yep, I probably shouldn't open this can o' worms, but as a committed agnostic I can't resist. It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a theist. You have to prove a negative.
The problem with religion is that it limits the sources of morality to a small part of the rich tradition of human thought. Jews focus on the Torah and commentary, Muslims on the Koran and commentary, Hindus on two or three (much longer) books, and so on. What happens to Sartre, Kant and Buber in that setting.
The good thing about atheists is that they can be totally open to the thinking of so many more people when it comes to matters of morality.
Old Hat,
Nah, not really. Jude makes a good point, though; like all Christians aren't the same, not all atheists are the same.
If given solid, concrete, undeniable evidence of the existence of a god, an atheist - if s/he's honest - will say "Okay, there's a god" and react accordingly. Atheism doesn't require faith - the belief in something you can't prove - it's merely reacting to reality as is and making judgements accordingly.
Course, it's all semantics and perception, as Jude pointed out. Some atheists are as feverent about their non-belief as your average snake-handlin' Pentacostal is about his belief.
jk: no, we don't really disagree much at all! I'd just reiterate that one problem is that science WILL inevitably be plugged into a larger moral system, because that's how we do things around here. The other is that science is definitely incomplete and probably incompletable, so there will probably always be inductively valid room for theism.
One final comment: I suspect that a lot of the "religious" figures out there, from Bush to Bin Laden, are utter cynics who are exploiting something they don't personally believe. (Bush may really believe it, but the neo-cons are very this-worldly, and exploitation of religious belief for social control is pure Leo Strauss). I think that in a lot of cases, the pro/anti religious debate is convenient for the powers that be...something to keep us all bickering endlessly (what's more futile to argue about than unquantifiables and intangibles?).
Therefore, my philosophy is: Don't worry about the belief, worry about the actions the beliefs lead to. Like so many other people here, I think that belief is a private matter. Unless it becomes coercive.
Preciate it cloneone. Not to mention the multimillion dollar business Le Haye has made pushing that crap in Wal Marts (another bastion of evil) across america - see this weeks Economist. Guess its like Will Rodgers used to say, "take a sob story and a piece of stick candy & you can lead the american public off the edge of the dead sea."
Bzz. Wrong answer. You don't have to prove anything if you are an atheist, just like you don't have to prove anything if you are a theist. Religion is not a question of proof, but belief.
Comments that express my views:
"I'm hostile to those who cloak their hate [and] in [sic] bigotry in religion."
"That's my creed, private faith and public politics."
"It's not the religion, it's the practitioners."
"The people that are defined as "fundamentalist" tend to engage in actions that go against what their religion truly teaches."
"Our problem isn't systems of belief; our problems are a) lack of compassion, and b) lack of humility."
"There are a lot of politically powerful people trying to put a stop to the enlightenment, age of reason, (in other words, progressive movement) because they can't stand the light."
"Its so simple, yet this is a power struggle."
---
Eventually excess has resulted in a change in the direction the pendulum swings. We aren't fully to the right hand side yet, but I haven't given up hope that we'll turn in the other direction.
I do fear though, that we could unlease awesome destruction on our country and the world by much further travel in this rightward direction.
It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a theist. You have to prove a negative.
Which is a logical impossibility, I might add.
For the record, I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic who thinks that there are certain questions we will probably never have a satisfactory answer to.
That's fine.
I am in the question, not the answer.
I'd just like to say, to just about everyone who's commented here tonight:
Thanks.
I know it's not my web log, and I'm not saying that from a proprietary sort of perspective.
I've certainly enjoyed this discussion, and I would like to express my sincere gratitude to nearly everyone for engaging in such thoughtful ways.
And Smalfish, sorry about that punching threat.
Peace, all.
Another Bruce,
Yeah, but if you're a theist, you have to prove something that's improvable. It ain't atheists making the outrageous claims, ya know. Frankly, I think it should be the other way around. Prove there is a god or buzz off.
Philalethes is right, Take Pascal's wager for instance, its the ultimate hedge strategy
time for lust, time for lie
time to kiss your life goodbye
send me money, send me green
heaven you will meet
make a contribution
and you'll get the better seat
Backslider, well said. I can see where you're coming from.
Actually, fundamentalism isn't that new. Even in the realm of Christianity, fundamentalism dates back to at least the 16th century. Remember Luther? Remember the Reformation? The Counter-Reformation? There is nothing new here, really.
" For the record, I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic who thinks that there are certain questions we will probably never have a satisfactory answer to."
And this public pronouncement alone makes you unfit to run for dog catcher in the USA. Damn, we're soooo enlightened.
couldn't be more OT, but what the hell:
Veteran actor Paul Newman has complained to Princeton University over a day named after him in which students are encouraged to binge drink.
Newman's Day, which is held annually on 24 April, sees students attempt to drink 24 beers in as many hours.
...The ritual has been named after the 79-year-old actor in reference to a quote he is alleged to have said: "24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not."
http://tinyurl.com/29wj7
The most devastating European war, the Thirty Years War, was fought because of Catholic-Protestant tensions. So, I see what you mean, ellroon.
Yes, I called it the most devastating, because I think a higher percentage of Europeans died in it than either of the World Wars. Plus, the destruction of cities was monumental. I could be wrong, however.
You godless heathen, Atrios... Atta boy!
And in honor of the occasion a song from our friends at Firesign Theatre:
Oh Blinding Light
Oh Light that blinds
I cannot see
Look out for me.
The Evil Atheist Conspiracy (EAC) is "mighty proud". You may pick up your premium prize at the local secret chapter house. This month, it's a toaster oven I think. (By the way, there is no EAC, and we don't have any black helicopters, there are no chapter houses, no premium prizes, and no laminated membership cards.)
AKA Donna
Old Hat,
Thanks for the Christian / deist distinction. Did a quick search and there is absolutely a huge difference. And now I have something I can use the next time the "Christian country" thing comes up.
Which also means that the fundies have HIJACKED OUR COUNTRY.
Some atheists are as feverent about their non-belief as your average snake-handlin' Pentacostal is about his belief.
Right. And as annoying. Present company excepted, of course.
"Moral clarity" of any stripe is for intellectual infants.
Why does Atrios hate God?
What Jude said. A pleasant and wonderfully troll-free discussion.
Good night, all
I am a uniter not a divider. Jeebus H. fkn' Christ. My daughter has a Darwin fish sticker on her car (hounded by the BACs for this) down here in Cent. Fla. does this make me an atheist?
"screaming into the silence of the universe" or some such shit like that.
well i've said it before i'll say it again, it's a HOLY WAR!!!
temporal lobe epilepsy,
I guess I'm not the only person who's seen Happy Accidents.
Did a quick search and there is absolutely a huge difference. And now I have something I can use the next time the "Christian country" thing comes up.
The Framers were far more sophisticated than the fundies give them credit for. Tell them to remember the American revolution came out of the Age of Enlightenment ...the Framers were East Coast Intellectual Elites, every last one of them. It drives them crazy.
Got to par-tay now.
Good night.
Out. Agree, lovely discussion.
Can't we get a journalist to ask GW if he defends his father's statement?
As a committed athiest, I have to disagree with the notion that it takes a stronger faith to support ones non-belief.
How many evangelical Athiests do you know of?
How many tents do you see going up in rural areas of athiests holding Leave Jesus revivals.
No, there is no proving of a negative. Personally, I just chose to stop believing in an afterlife, and I was relieved of a huge burden of living my life according to a proscribed set of religious rules.
Let's play a game.
You go first: Define "God".
My turn. I'll define "fairy".
"Moral clarity" of any stripe is for intellectual infants.
Thersites | Email | Homepage | 04.24.04 - 12:22 am |
Right on. That's why I find the Naderites and fashion anarchists as annoying as I find the bull-goose looney right wing nutjobs. To doubt is to be human. To ask questions is the pinicle of mankind's ability. It sets the mind free and gives it wings.
Question everything. Period.
Preach it, bro' Atrios.
Regarding the origins of fundamentalism, "The Battle for God" by Karen Armstrong is outstanding.
Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Preach it, bro' Atrios.
Regarding the origins of fundamentalism, "The Battle for God" by Karen Armstrong is outstanding.
"Why did God create a dual universe?
So that he might say
'Be not like me. I am alone.'
And it might be heard."
-House of Leaves, p. 45
I've been prowling around on the White House site (whitehouse.gov) a lot lately, and noticed that the VERY FIRST proclamation he made, practically minutes after his inauguration, is to declare January 21, 2001 a "National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving". Looking back on it all now, it's very scary in retrospect, that the FIRST proclamation he makes is this.
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 21, 2001, a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving and call upon the citizens of our Nation to gather together in homes and places of worship to pray alone and together and offer thanksgiving to God for all the blessings of this great and good land. On this day, I call upon Americans to recall all that unites us. Let us become a nation rich not only in material wealth but in ideals -- rich in justice and compassion and family love and moral courage. I ask Americans to bow our heads in humility before our Heavenly Father, a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors, but to love them, to ask His guidance upon our Nation and its leaders in every level of government."
This is the ***FIRST*** thing he does. Atrios, I'm not afraid of saying I'm a liberal or an atheist (or maybe an agnostic) -- and I have a right to be here.
The fact that you can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist means that the rest of us are justified in believing in him. I'm sorry, "Him".
I'm hoping for an air hockey table this year. (I'm tired of waiting for peace on Earth.)
Right on, Atrios!
Just got back from visiting some (very religiously fundamentalistic) in-laws.
The bookshelves in their den were filled with all kinds of religiosity, including a number of anti-evolution and "left-behind" titles. But when I used their PC (fast cable-modem connection) to check out some of my favorite subversive web-sites, I was in for a bit of a surprise.
I first decided to hit juancole.com for the Prof. Cole's latest bits o wisdom. But as soon as I typed the letters "ju", the IE history feature immediately offered to take me to "juicyboobs.com".
And that was just the beginning. The browser's history cache was just filled with all manner of XXX web-sites.
So it seems that when Daddy isn't teaching Sunday School (or reading the latest "left-behind" title), he's surfing the web in search of "forbidden fruit".
The Founders, Deists AND Freemasons, pretty much all of them.
Most of them paid lip service to Christianity, albeit reluctantly and more for political reasons than anything else.
You know, we didnt have too much of a problem with religion in the US until the fundie evnagelical movement in the what, teens? twentieres of the 20th Century?
A couple of things here..
1. Atrios is right on the money, saying more or less, that lack of belief is still accepted as an acceptable method of prejudging a person. Like it or not, it's true.
2. To a lot of atheists, while we don't really care what other people believe, when it contains implicit threats towards us, it's kind of hard to ignore these things.
I think that a lot of religious believers, who are otherwise fine people, tend to overlook these things because it makes them uncomfortable, with good reasons.
Face it. The 10 commandments equates us with murderers.
That's a blunt way of saying it, but that's pretty much all you need to remember.
3. Like it or not, not slamming religion, but this is something we're going to have to face eventually global-wide. Religion is a huge inkblot test. In fact, it gives moral reassurance to those that in no way deserve it.
That's a huge problem. People can pollute, cheat, lie, steal, then their community tells them that they are a good person because they go to church...
That's the big whisky tango foxtrot. That's a HUGE problem. When the religious right rants about their percieved cultural ills, the above is the big lie they're hiding.
(Pat Robertson himself is involved in African diamond mining, maybe the most immoral business in the world)
Anonymous wrote:
"Don't you guys think that atheism is a religion also? To me it takes religious faith to be an atheist: Faith that there is no God."
I think you can make a technical distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but as soon as you get into the area of actually living, there is no such thing as agnosticism. You either live as though you believe there is a god, or as though there is no god. In daily life, what makes an agnostic different from an atheist, except that he/she will be undecided on the subject? How will his/her decisions be made in a way different from the way an atheist makes a decision?
I was raised Roman Catholic. My wife and I quit after our daughter was baptized. It was all such a sham. that was 13 years ago. My wife believes in a god, though more as an idea than a being. I'm a secular humanist. So we're quite at home in a Unitaian Universalist Church.
Several of my friends in my teen years were molested by our parish priest. At least one of them (two, I think) eventually committed suicide. The priest was transferred to another parish.
Fucking bastards.
LOL Hudson. Since I grew up not believing in Santa Claus, I didn't let my children either. Was considered cruel by my in-laws. I have always tried to tell the truth to my kids, and this stupidity felt like lying.
Think the Christmas do-dad that offends me the most is the one with Santa praying in front of the baby Jesus. Talk about mixing religion with fairies.
time for lust, time for lie
time to kiss your life goodbye
send me money, send me green
heaven you will meet
make a contribution
and you'll get the better seat
hetfield, ulrich | Email | Homepage | 04.24.04 - 12:19 am | #
As a Metallica fan, I appreciate these lyrics to one of their most underated songs! Leper Messiah!
James Hetfield's mother was a woman of deep faith. She died of cancer. Instead of going to a doctor to treat her, she prayed to God to make her better. "Until it Sleeps" is a song that was inspired by her tale.
But can you prove God doesn't exist?If you can't, I think that's a form of faith.
Old Hat,I respect your views more than alot of people I know and yet this statement begs the question.Why do I have to have faith that there is no god?When,from all the evidence I gather it is a fictional account that there is a god.We have been handed down over the generations a telling of tales and writings created by mere mortals and we are expected to have faith that these men had every man woman and child who ever lived all through history best intrest at heart?I find this kind of thinking to be heretic.Science has evolved over the course of history and yet so has religion.This to me makes the case that I dont have to have faith to be a disbeliever.I can make a judgement that all of mankind has been led to a misjudgment of someones writings.
Throughout history we have seen despotic rulers use religion to keep populations in check,even the churches have done this.Look at the way America became.King george wanted to have everyone in England become catholics and conform to the popes way of thinking,even outlawing disident religions.This to me is utter madness and yet the majority of the worlds population see around this issue and pretend that this so called god is not made up to be one rulers hold over them.
Darwin is the kicker in this issue for me,not that he proves there is no god because he doesnt and that was not his goal.Darwin proved that survival of the fittest is the rule on planet earth and therefore a god is/was not needed to create live an this beautiful planet.Many other scientists have contributed to this theory and it is'nt just about biology.
If we are to become more than what our species already is we are going to have to shed the misplaced belief in a god and work toward the spiritual principals that this book all mankind revers into action.not just pay lip service to whatever crosses some rulers fancy at the time.
Fuck that pinhead George Bush. Religion is for uneducated people. There is less evidence for god than there is for WMD in Iraq. Think about it.
An officially unofficial Evil Atheist Conspiracy Web site
And:
Judith Hayes, the Happy Heretic.
Enjoy!
AKA Donna
Chris:That's a good comment. In the DC area, out and about, there's a series of churches that are more or less kept hush hush.
They were actually Freemason halls converted into Christian churches. The Sacred numbers can be seen in the angles of the church.
Very interesting.
>After all, atheism is a belief that there is no God. Period.
This is where the conversation usually breaks down. A couple of people try to fit atheism into their religious mindset and just assume its another belief system.
Here are the problems with that approach:
Atheism makes no claims - THIESTS CLAIM there is a mighty strange thing in the universe, actually many things - god(s), the power of prophesy, the power of communion, miracles, etc.
Again, atheism makes no claims, thus the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the theist and her claims.
Atheism is a very natural philosophy, it is simply looking at the facts and coming to an obvious conclusion. Some people in this thread have already started with the rhetoric, staw-men, and false analogies to undermine scientific cosmology (hey physics is hard, so there must be a god) or (we dont know everything so god must exist) etc.
Worse, is Pascal's Wager which should be insulting to any serious religious person. In a nutshell Pascal says its best to believe in the Christian god because if he does exist then he will damn you to hell if you don't believe. In other words its belief through terrorism. And it won't work, if this god exists then it will have the power to read your mind and know your true intentions.
I've been prowling around on the White House site (whitehouse.gov) a lot lately, and noticed that the VERY FIRST proclamation he made, practically minutes after his inauguration, is to declare January 21, 2001 a "National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving".
-------------
LOL!! Coincidentally enough, that was pretty close to the the very first thing the first American Congress did when the nation was new. Of course they hadn't had the Constitution distorted by liberal judges yet =D
Just got back from visiting some (very religiously fundamentalistic) in-laws.
The bookshelves in their den were filled with all kinds of religiosity, including a number of anti-evolution and "left-behind" titles. But when I used their PC (fast cable-modem connection) to check out some of my favorite subversive web-sites, I was in for a bit of a surprise.
I first decided to hit juancole.com for the Prof. Cole's latest bits o wisdom. But as soon as I typed the letters "ju", the IE history feature immediately offered to take me to "juicyboobs.com".
And that was just the beginning. The browser's history cache was just filled with all manner of XXX web-sites.
So it seems that when Daddy isn't teaching Sunday School (or reading the latest "left-behind" title), he's surfing the web in search of "forbidden fruit".
juicy boobs.com mmm, haven't been there yet see you god haters later.
Yeah, but if you're a theist, you have to prove something that's improvable. It ain't atheists making the outrageous claims, ya know. Frankly, I think it should be the other way around. Prove there is a god or buzz off.
No argument with you here, brother, that is why I try not to make the antithetical argument to their claim. I don't go around saying "God doesn't exist." I just say the same thing that you do, prove it or buzz off.
To be a committed agnostic, however, is to keep an open mind. You must understand philisophically that reality is too big for any one being to understand. You can be proven wrong at any instant on any solid ground that you thought you stood on. That does not mean that you cannot have strong beliefs, just that you are aware of your own intellectual limitations. Doubt is not looked on as a virtue these days. But anyone who is not honest enough to doubt his own understanding of a reality that is infinitely vaster than what he knows is a willfully stupid person. I don't hate GWB in any way shape or form other than he seems to be a person that has closed his mind. He is not an innately stupid person. He has made himself so.
Ahhhh..the EAC...
alt.atheism. The happy home of a whole lot of stuff. Too bad I don't have newsgroup access and I'm too annoyed by Deja/Google's interface to bother with it :p
Quite maybe the place with the most amazing trolls in all the internet. Wonder if ol' Boatwright is still hanging around.
*wistful sigh*
In daily life, what makes an agnostic different from an atheist, except that he/she will be undecided on the subject? How will his/her decisions be made in a way different from the way an atheist makes a decision?
And, more importantly, how will the decisions of an athiest or an agnostic be made in a way different from someone who claims to adhere to one particular faith or another?
To hear the fundamentalist "Christians" talk about it, their politicians and leaders should be the most moral, above reproach, exemplars of decency... But reality doesn't meet this expectation.
It's not that Christians, "Christians," Muslims, or Jews, or whatever, are any worse than athiests or agnostics... It's that nobody's inherently any better just because of what they claim to believe.
Wouldn't it be nice if people like (for example) Jerry Falwell and terrorism supporter Pat Robertson could just admit that they're regular human beings? Instead of acting like, because they claim to follow Jesus (Despite all evidence to the contrary) they're automatically superior to everyone else?
Another Bruce:The other thing is, Agnoticsm and Atheism are not contradictory.
Atheism just is without belief.
Agnostics believe that there's no way to tell one war or the other.
Most atheists are also agnostic. (Aside from individual definitions of god, which are logically impossible)
Another Bruce,
I'm with you, as I've said. Both science and philosophy have taught me to approach reality with an open mind and willing to accept anything, no matter how fantastic. Just bring daddy some proof first.
So far, God's right up there with ESP and spoon-bending in my book. Doesn't quite cut the mustard.
Think the Christmas do-dad that offends me the most is the one with Santa praying in front of the baby Jesus
You're joking, right?
But then, the church around the corner from me put a giant, goofy, purple inflatable bunny next to the big crucifixion scene in front of the church last Easter, so I shouldn't be surprised ...
Wow! Late to the party here and I haven't had a chance to go through all the posts, but here's an editorial from today's Mpls Star Tribune on the subject of God that I can relate to quite well: Why try to shrink God to our understanding?
I find myself in utter, speechless amazement that it is those who are most pious -- often those who study rigorously, who truly pray from the depths of their heart and who truly yearn to be instructed by divine grace -- who are the very ones who so easily shrink God down smaller and smaller until he fits into a structure of their own making.
Here's the history of religion in a sentence: We tremble in the face of the Divine's immensity. That trembling can become, inside us, mostly fear or mostly awe. When our religion is filled with more fear than awe, we inevitably want to put God safely in a box and make God do what we want, hate the people we hate, punish the people we fear.
In daily life, what makes an agnostic different from an atheist, except that he/she will be undecided on the subject? How will his/her decisions be made in a way different from the way an atheist makes a decision?
-------------
In theory or in practice? What it boils down to in practice is usually a matter of hostility. The athiest is often hostile to the notion of supernatural or divine existence and tends to exude contempt for those who disagree, whether they ever state that contempt or not.
The agnostic is not sold on supernatural or divine existence, but generally is not hostile to the idea in practice.
Amen.
As Gov. Dean said,
"i'm sick of being preached to by fundamentalist Christians."
That's all I needed to hear, and I was a died-in-the-wool Deaniac from then on.
I found the EAC through forums at Delphi a few years ago, Karmakin. But I'm a living testament along with Judith Hayes, that the great granddaughter, granddaughter and daughter of devout Lutherans, herself a Lutheran organist,, can, with a little effort, become a card carrying member of the EAC.
AKA Donna
If anyone wants to know what no separation of church and states looks like and could happen to their group, just look at the miserable treatment of gays for centuries. "Sodomy" laws, among many other treatments, were always a clear violation of church and state.
Seraphiel.
I don't know about Falwell. But I do know that Pat Robertson has engaged in enough actions antithetical to what he professes belief in to be judged harshly. That is, I think he is scum, and actually a lesser person than many. Not because he's inherently bad, but rather because what he has done.
Without wading thru all the comments, let me just say re Atrios' post:
RIGHT ON!
Thank you.
A little late to the party, but let me add my "You go, girl!"
Two snaps waaaaaay up!
Finally, finally someone has put into words what I've been thinking lately.
"Hate and bigotry cloaked in religion" is exactly what Ashcroft is to me. He personifies it. He is like the man Jesus warned about, the one who prays loudly in the streets so people will call him a good religious man. Separation of church and state is for the good of both. I do not want a fundamentalist theocracy!
Thank you God for your healing gift of religion.
Adam 4-4-2 Greg Palast's book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy talks about Robertson and the deranged business deals he has been involved with. What he has done cloaked in his religion is definitely not holy.
And Brooklyn Girl, no, I was not joking. Being an exchurch goer, and a liberal has been an interesting walk, but I still don't like the crap and clutter that surrounds religious thought.
The inflatable purple bunny (same point) is hilarious.
KAte:Delphi. The other great old chat forum
Geez. I've been around and I'm only 25...
I was on Delphi when I was 16 and everybody thought I was 45 lol...
Isn't anyone else outraged by Bob Woodward continuing to blame George Tenet? iTS NONSENSE. yOU DON'T WRITE AN ENTIRE BOOK ABOUT bUSH'S DEEP CONVICTION TO GO TO war in iraq and then say the whole thing turned on Tenet saying the words 'slam dunk'.
Screw the Santa Jesus! We need the Chocolate Jesus!
Don't go to church on Sunday
Don't get on my knees to pray
Don't memorize the books of the Bible
I got my own special way
But I know Jesus loves me
Maybe just a little bit more
I fall on my knees every Sunday
At Zerelda Lee's candy store
Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Keep me satisfied
Well I don't want no Anna Zabba
Don't want no Almond Joy
There ain't nothing better
Suitable for this boy
Well it's the only thing
That can pick me up
Better than a cup of gold
See only a chocolate Jesus
Can satisfy my soul
When the weather gets rough
And it's whiskey in the shade
It's best to wrap your Savior
Up in cellophane
He flows like the big muddy
But that's ok
Pour him over ice cream
For a nice parfait
Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Good enough for me
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Good enough for me
Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Keep me satisfied
(Tom Waits, of course)
Let's have Christ for President.
Let us have him for our King.
Cast your vote for the Carpenter
that you call the Nazarene.
The only way we can ever beat
these crooked politician men
Is to run the money changers out of the temple
And put the Carpenter in
O It's Jesus Christ for president
God above our king
With a job and a pension for young and old
We will make hallelujah ring
Every year we waste enough
to feed the ones who starve
We build our civilization up
and we shoot it down with wars
But with the Carpenter on the seat
away up in the capital town
The USA would be on the way prosperity bound!
-Woody Guthrie
If anyone wants to know what no separation of church and states looks like and could happen to their group, just look at the miserable treatment of gays for centuries. "Sodomy" laws, among many other treatments, were always a clear violation of church and state.
--------------
Not really. You are presupposing that being averse to homosexuality is an exclusively religious condition. This is hardly the case. It was judged a psycholical impairment for the majority of the 20th century and only delisted by the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970's (Oddly enough without a single study to support such a move).
The other thing is, Agnoticsm and Atheism are not contradictory.
You know, it distills down to something very simple:
I'm o.k. with whatever you believe, as long as it makes you happy.
As long as you don't hurt nobody
(And to qoute the band XTC mentioned upthread)
'Less of course, they ask you.
If you have RealPlayer, listen to http://www.ianmasters.org/left_coast.html">this recent interview Ian Masters did with Fredrick Clarkson, author of Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy.
Clarkson stresses it is political suicide to try to paint the Religious Right as wicked as they are.
Like Fundamentalist school board candidates, we must employ a little political stealth.
Sad but true.
It's sad that they don't make Catholic politicians the way they used to.
and don't forget...
FUCK KRISTOF.
(I'm assuming he started this rant.)
I don't know that anyone can "prove" that there is no god at all, but I can logically prove that the Christian god does not exist:
The Christian God is omnicient (i.e., all-knowing),
The Christian God is omnipotent (i.e., all-powerful),
The Christian God is love.
If the above are all true, then there cannot be infanticide, or rape-torture-homicides of Catholic nuns and genocide is right the fuck out.
Is the Christian God ignorant of these (and other) crimes against humanity? If so, then the whole omnicient thing fails, and there is no Christian God.
Is the Christian God unable to affect what happens to people here on earth? If so, then it is not omnipotent and there is no Christian God.
If the Christian God is both able to intervene in our lives, and knows what evil is here but still does nothing (as is obviously what is happening), then the Christian God has no love for us, and there is no Christian God.
QED, I should think.
This is a quick recounting of the "Problem of Evil" argument that no one in the Christian Church has been able to deal with. Any flaws in this argument are mine, go look it up.
thank you for saying what needed to be said.
I am a Christian and I was also sick when our so called representatives in Congress were pandering to the narrow minded bigots in this country. I firmly believe in separation of church and state.
You can sing in that church brother.
Attila: What it boils down to in practice is usually a matter of hostility.
Yes, all us atheists are angry and will kill your dog. *roll*
There really is no difference in "everyday terms" between atheists, agnostics, non-religious, the apathetic, etc.
Are you trying to say an atheist might be more passionate than an agnostic? Perhaps, only because if you are in a situation where you are arguing with someone, the atheist would be better informed than someone who is apathetic about the whole thing. When this atheist makes someone seem like an uninformed person full of logical contradictions then suddenly this atheist is "angry." Just like liberals are all "elitists" or "intellectuals." sigh
It seems, like the righty blowhards, the extremely religious are just as thin-skinned and very much afraid of the facts.
Atrios,
your buddy Nikki Kristi has some advice for you, "hug a Christian."
When I was young and they packed me off to school
and taught me how not to play the game,
I didn't mind if they groomed me for success,
or if they said that I was a fool.
So I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm --
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said -- I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
So to my old headmaster (and to anyone who cares):
before I'm through I'd like to say my prayers --
I don't believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
Well you can excomunicate me on my way to Sunday school
and have all the bishops harmonize these lines --
how do you dare tell me that I'm my Father's son
when that was just an accident of Birth.
I'd rather look around me -- compose a better song
`cos that's the honest measure of my worth.
In your pomp and all your glory you're a poorer man than me,
as you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
I don't believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong --
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
-Ian Anderson
BTW, what brought on this post? One too many emails from "Melanie"???
Please, Atrios. We prefer "Non-Theists."
Seraphiel.
I don't know about Falwell. But I do know that Pat Robertson has engaged in enough actions antithetical to what he professes belief in to be judged harshly. That is, I think he is scum, and actually a lesser person than many. Not because he's inherently bad, but rather because what he has done.
That was the point. He claims to follow Christian teaching, and drapes himself in his shows of faith and piety... So, in spite of the horrendous things he's done and supported, he acts like he's hot shit.
That's basically the problem with his ilk. They're no better (and in his case, arguably much worse) than anyone else, but they don't seem to understand it.
Man, Atrios, that was great to read, especially today.
I think what many people forget is that some of us 'godless liberals' are the way we are because we were seriously mindfucked with religion at some critical point in our lives. I was dragged through a couple of religions (Lutheranism, Mormonism, Fundamentalist Christianity) by a still fanatical parent. I actually felt a 'pop' when my mind was freed from being entrapped in what I can only describe as a tiny silicon bubble created by years of fear and brainwashing. It was excruciating. The irony is, though I am an atheist/agnostic, Jesus counts as a large influence in my beliefs today.
Through personal experience with fundamentalist Christians, it's interesting that many have no problem with blood vengence/sacrifice, other human beings burning in hell for eternity or with the deaths and suffering of tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq. How is this much different from the disassociative and apathetic mindset of a serial killer?
I've seen so many fundamentalist Christians distance themselves from 'living in the flesh'. They scoff at 'humanism' and 'worldliness' --and I would even venture to say that some hate their own humanity. The most disturbing thing I've noticed about some I've had conversations with is that they are so miserable that they want to die or they are waiting for The Second Coming (Armageddon) so they can get their reward, which is usually some material item like a mansion or gold and jewels.
The thing they fail to understand is that the most enlighted human beings throughout history (fictional or not) are considered as such because of their great humanity.
Being kind, compassionate and treating others the way you want to be treated is in itself it's own reward. I can honestly say that I've the most decent human beings I've met thus far have been 'no-preference'--they just don't have an agenda and when they do something for you, it's because they sincerely mean it.
IMHO, religion has done so much more harm than good in this world. Science beats religion by a landslide as far as easing many of the ills of humanity, though science and technology combined with religious fanaticism could well be the death knell of the human race.
Monotheism is the greatest threat to the continuation of civilization.
AMEN, BROTHER!!!
Tony B.
While we're on this song kick...
From the best album you've never heard, Laid by James..
P.S.
You're a weapon of devotion
Keep the faithful entertained
You're a lover of attention
Found a way to pawn the soul
Disposition may be fetching
But the world moves on and leaves you far behind
I hear you, I hear you, whispering such gorgeous stories
I see you, I see you, trying to break free
You liar, you liar, you can't live the dreams you're spinning
You liar, love to be deceived
You're falling, you're falling, falling from your god-like distance
You're fashion, just fashion, fashion doesn't keep
You're sour, so sour, all is hope and trust is misplaced
You're sour, now you are alone
Walking on fire, feel the way the world's inclining
Walking on fire, hate to deceive
Walking on fire, now the world will keep its distance
Walking on fire, you rather than me
My son says, dear father, what did you do when the world turned over
Keep spinning, keep spinning, send us off to sleep
You liar, you liar, all your words are just dust in moonshine
You liar, love to be deceived
Walking on fire, found a place away from humans
Walking on fire, hate to deceive
Walking on fire, now the world will keep its distance
Walking on fire, you rather than me
Funny you should bring up that Jethro Tull song... when I was in junior high, the "Aqualung" album became a divisive issue at my town's school board thanks to the local religious zealots. Someone had played it in a high school art class and the local baptists had a fit. The song you quoted was a major factor.
They were also after "Catcher in the Rye," "Manchild in the Promised Land," and "Autobigoraphy of Malcolm X" in the high school library. I immediately read all three, and went out and bought "Aqualung," for good measure (and I wasn't the only one!).
To my little redneck town's credit, the complaints of the religious nuts never went anywhere, and the whole issue kinda dried up and blew away...
"Isn't anyone else outraged by Bob Woodward continuing to blame George Tenet? iTS NONSENSE. yOU DON'T WRITE AN ENTIRE BOOK ABOUT bUSH'S DEEP CONVICTION TO GO TO war in iraq and then say the whole thing turned on Tenet saying the words 'slam dunk'.
Anonymous "
Fuck Woodward.
He's perpetuating the BIG lie. And how. That somehow, someway, Bush the lesser is capable of a thought, a decision, a stance.
Shyeah.
We've all watched the Chimp.
No.
Fucking.
Way.
Balisardo,
Thanks for trying.
Religious experience is real, just as UFOs are. Maybe we can't explain either exactly, but there's no denying that a lot of people across time and cultures have had incredibly similar experiences. You can argue that it's just swamp gas, but if you haven't had the experience, you may be under the delusion that reason can prove it's bogus. If you have had the experience, well, you know what I'm talking about. Doesn't mean alleged believers should beat up atheists, or vice versa, of course.
Grebberg:It's called catharsis. It's a powerful emotion, something that's hard to explain. The easiest way to explain it is a group release of emotion.
You also get it at sporting events, concerts and blog comment boards.
A huge asteroid or comet impact would end civilization, but the chances of that are remote.
This is a quick recounting of the "Problem of Evil" argument that no one in the Christian Church has been able to deal with.
What, this is my fault?
Look, I gave you people one simple four word declarative sentence: "thou shalt not kill."
All one syllable words even, for chrissake! (Oops, sorry kid, my bad.)
And a few thousand years later, you guys are still fucking it up!
So don't be blaming all your shit on me, OK?
Incidentally, this next election is up to you, but if you reelect that Bush twit, you'll REALLY be sorry.
Just saying.
Dear President Bush:
>
>Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
>learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many
>people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for
>example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be
>an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however
>
>1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,
>provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
>claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
>Why can't I own Canadians?
>
>2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
>21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
>
>3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
>period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I
>tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
>
>4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
>pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They
>claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
>
>5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
>clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
>him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
>
>6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
>abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
>don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
>
>7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
>defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
>vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
>
>8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
>around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
>19:27. How should they die?
>
>9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
>unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
>
>10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
>crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
>different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
>and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
>of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't
>we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people
>who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
>
>I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
>considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
>Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
>
>A Concerned Christian Americ
Lol Dave. I buy any book that the bookburners complain about. But sadly, many of them have been rather tame. Some books are still on their "to burn" list even though they have long since become dated and stale.
The Catcher in the Rye has been a mystery to me as to why. Because he questions everything? The reference to Jesus? The incestuous aunt? I'm clueless on that one.
But more information is better than less. More discussion makes for better decisions. Healthy give and take such as this thread are a joy and restores my faith that there are Americans who still think.
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
>unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
>
There is no way I'm giving up my barbecue pork ribs or fried catfish.
ellroon, there were big plastic Easter eggs, too. The whole scene stopped me dead in my tracks; I'm sorry I didn't have a camera with me.
Back to the deist Founding Fathers. A few things suddenly clicked for me. Several years ago, I was working on a research paper about the history of science museums in the US. I wish I could find the damned thing now. Many of the country's founders, Jefferson in particular, felt that God was in nature, and therefore a better understanding of the laws of nature would reveal God. Paleontology was also becoming an active science then; the first intact skeleton of the American mammoth was mounted in Philadelphia (if I remember correctly, by the portraitist Charles Willson Peale), which impressed all those who saw it, including Franklin and Jefferson ... I wish I'd been there.
I'm sure those guys would have embraced Darwin and the theory of evolution. I'd love to stick that down the throats of all the creationists, who just can't accept the fact that we are all part of a biological continuum.
Anyway, thanks for a thought-provoking, troll-free discussion. What a pleasure spending a few hours with such an intelligent bunch of people.
Night, all.
Greb: Maybe we can't explain either exactly, but there's no denying that a lot of people across time and cultures have had incredibly similar experiences.
Epileptic seizures, morning paralysis, lucid dreams, etc.
The difference is that if you have a religious mindset or paranormal mindset you will apply this filter to all these ambigious inputs. For instance I may have a stain on my basement floor, but if I was a Xtian I may say "That stain is a sign of the Virgin Mary" or a Hindu might say "That looks like Ganesh." etc
I've had morning paralysis (it happens to just about everyone, your body actually paralyzes itself during sleept to avoid hurting itself) and sometimes you just don't want up properly. It FEELS like some force is on top of you or controlling you. You FEEL powerless. A religious person or paranormal person would automatically say "look that was an alien!" or whatever when we now know full well that its a normal thing to happen to a human.
I've had lucid dreams and controlled my dreams. Its a normal thing to do and doesn't mean anything in religious terms, its purely materialistic and if you wanted to you could learn the skills to raise your chances of having more lucid dreams.
The same is true with coincidences and numerology. If you are obsessed with finding patterns you will find them and it will be like a feedback loop reinforcing your belief in that pattern. This is why so many people in love claim stuff like "I saw her name everywhere I went that day" or "That cloud looked like him!"
Cavaet: x amount of coincidences are normal, in fact if we didn't have coincidences we would be having a problem. Taking a coincidence and saying "Aha this is proof" is pretty meaningless.
As usual, there's a term for this. Its called Occam's Razor which has been simplified to say, "The simplest explanation is USUALLY the most accurate." Adding aliens and gods to explain things shows a bias not a search for truth.
"Religion is for uneducated people. "
Please tell me you're kidding, or maybe you're just half-educated yourself.
Sad but true.
It's not sad, religion often speaks in a language that is noble and engages the mind. I happen to think that this is the natural ground for liberalism to do good work on.
This might be the best analogy, but a couple of years ago the Sierra Club decided to form an alliance with hunters and groups affiliated with hunting interests, this alliance is still forming and may take another decade to mature, but it makes sense. To get good publicity for preservation and environmental causes in a magazine like Field and Stream is invaluable. These groups have provided more wildlife habitat across the nation than all the the enviro groups put together have.
Like the Sierra Club, whether or not we agree with all the beliefs of a certain group, we should look at the results. If a particular church is doing a good job of taking care of the homeless. We should support that church and should judge them on the works that they do. I mean judge them! If they are using their church to run a political campaign, we should take away their tax-exempt status. Just like the Sierra Club lost theirs. Of course, this can cut both ways across the political spectrum, but, as Scorpio says: If you're gonna play, you gotta pay.
"Religion is for uneducated people. "
Please tell me you're kidding, or maybe you're just half-educated yourself.
My take on Jethro Tull's "Wind-up" is that God is more impressed with good acts instead of going to church every Sunday, and then doing whatever the hell you want. George W Bush is a wind-up Christian.
I guess that's why the fundies were all up in arms about it. If there's one thing that the RR doesn't like to be called, it's "hypocrites".
Oh, and personally, I couldn't stand Catcher in the Rye. I felt Holden was a self-important asshole. However, I would never advocate burning it, or banning it. (It's on the ALA's Most Challenged Book list)
Fundamentalism is not simply going back to "old" religion (i.e., the "fundamentals". It's actually fairly new (starting around the beginning of the 20th Century CE), and consists of an unwavering adherence to the five "fundamental" precepts:
1). The divine authorship and inerrancy of the Bible.
2). The deity and virgin birth of Christ.
3). Christ's substitutionary atonement for mankind's sins.
4). The literal resurrection of Christ from the dead.
5). The literal return of Christ.
Of course, most of these "fundamentals" are part of most Christian theology, but these have particular emphasis for fundamentalists. For instance, "substitutionary atonement" emphasises that only salvation through "grace" is possible; good works are not enough. Belief in the literal inerrancy of the Holey Babble is a good clue to a "fundie"; it gives us the YEC creationist folks. And it is these two that really make the most practical difference in the outward behaviour of the "fundies".
As for "atheism", strictly speaking, it is simply the lack of religious belief. Within this taxonomic phyla, there are several species, with "strong atheists" claiming that there is sufficienct evidence to (provisionally) rule out the existence of at least the commonly considered deities. This is not a "religious" belief; it is rather based on the available evidence. You may quibble with whether the amount of evidence is sufficient to support such a conclusion, but to call this a belief (implying a faith-based "religious conviction") is to misstate the case, and to obscure the fundamental difference between the advertised attributes of the "faith" required of religious observants, and the evidence-based decisions of the atheist.
Other atheists, called "weak atheists", simply hold no religious beliefs at all, but do not claim that there is enough proof of the non-existence of gods right now to rule that out.
As someone else pointed out, "agnosticism" is most properly defined as the belief that it's impossible (at least within the realm of science) to discover anything about transcendent beings such as gods, and this is what Huxley had in mind when he coined the term. It is nowadays (improperly) extended to people who are simply not sure or completely undecided themselves, but that wasn't the original meaning.
HTH.
Cheers,
-- Arne (a.a. #101)
Adam:My impression has always been that there's a growing amount of religosity that is singularly about "wind-up belief".
That somehow going to church forgives them for ANY sins comitted through the rest of the week.
Religion is a fairly neutral thing. However, this aspect of it is a major concern.
As for religion being for uneducated people, I always viewed atheism as being for that group of people in the honors (rather than gifted) track (speaking in shorthand as a product of NY State public schools). In other words, the 85% to 98% pack. The less smart are religious because, well, because. And the really intelligent believe in God because the world is just too amazing to be an accident (and because they recognize that there is a whole universe of knowledge that they do not understand). But those who are really smart but not quite geniuses think too much of themselves to give credit to anyone (or anything) other than themselves. I'm sorry if this offends people, and I recognize that it is a prejudice, but there you go . . .
I am Atrios!
Yes, I agree 110%, Karmakin. Winder-ups believe that just by going to church, and saying some babble, that their God will forgive them for all the bad they did that week. But I don't think God is at all impressed.
Ooops. I said that "substitutionary atonement" was used to argue that "good works are not enough". In fact, the prime distinction (and one where the fundies break from such as the RCC) is that "good works" are not only "not enough", but more significantly, that they are not even required at all. As everyone is born a sinner, and we are all imperfect, it is only grace that offers salvation. As such, even a serial axe-murdering pederast will go to Heaven if they truly accept Gawd's grace and accept Christ as their saviour (the only precondition on receiving the "grace" resulting from the substitutionary atonement). This is true even if their inevitable fallible human behaviour lapses, as long as they "keep the faith".
Of course, it's this nonsense that I find most illogical with the whole Christian theology. In my mind, the Gawd of the Holey Babble screwed up once (in the Garden), twice (with Noah), and a third time (with Jaaayyyyyzzzuusss). If I ever get my hands on his scrawny neck, I'll fire that bastard (yep, He's got no father) for incompetence. . . . Three strikes, you're out. What a loser.
Cheers,
-- Arne (a.a. #101)
I think that science can be used for religious purposes, too. I've met enough scientists who have become essentially brain-washed by their training, and so dedicated to whatever they themselves have spent decades on, that they no longer hear any criticism or consider it. So I would treat science every bit as critically as religion. Just consider how the nineteenth century darwinists tried to prove that Europeans are more evolved than Africans, and how women are closer to gorillas in brainsize than men, therefore inferior. And this stuff is still going on. ANYTHING can be used to prop up a worldview.
And of course I believe in goddesses and gods. How could I not? I exist, after all, and I am a goddess. But I guess the problem is different if you are the worshipper.
Buddhists do not believe in a god but they do have principles for living. Other than their belief in reincarnation, I find Buddhism puts forth a practical way of living.
I especially like the current Dalai Lama who says “If science proves facts that are different from Buddhist understanding, Buddhism must change.”
I think that shows an open mindedness that "revealed" religions do not have.
Incidentally, this next election is up to you, but if you reelect that Bush twit, you'll REALLY be sorry.
Just saying.
God | Email | Homepage | 04.24.04 - 1:16 am | #
Thanks, God I have one question, what really is your homepage?
Flatd: (today)And the really intelligent believe in God because the world is just too amazing to be an accident
16th century: And the really intelligent people believe the sun revolves around the earth!
17th century: And the really intelligent people believe witches should be burnt.
18th century: And the really intelligent people believe heretics should be killed
19th century: And the really intelligent people deny the existence of meteorites. Rocks FALLING FROM THE SKY?!
No, you're not prejudiced you're just falling for the logical fallacy of belief from authority.
Flatiron:Errr..no.
Actually, belief in god in my experience has nothing to do with experience. It has to do with cultural experience.
Most believers believe, at least learn to believe, because it is socially acceptable. Once you get that, positive reinforcement kicks in via catharsis, and you're hooked like a drug.
Catharsis is VERY addictive.
I'm not attacking religion. I believe that however you get that catharsis doesn't matter as long as you get it. It's the meaning of life.
I was brought up in an extremely religious household. My dad was a deacon in a Methodist church and later Southern Baptist. We were led off to church every time the doors were open there. I hated it, too, because I would miss my cartoons or something I was watching on TV on the weekends. As a kid, sometimes I would start falling asleep during the sermon and my head would start drooping after an hour and a half church service. My dad would elbow me. If he had to do that more than twice, I knew I would be have my ass switched with a special Althea tree that grew out front perfect for switches. They would leave blue bruise strips all over my ass and legs and sometimes across my head if he was really angry. Christian fundamentalist 'spare the rod, spoil the child' sort of thing. When I became a teenager, and starting figuring out I was gay, I saw the passages in the Bible where it basically stated that gays are an abomination. That's when I began questioning it all. I didn't feel like an abomination. I guess through my twenties I was basically agnostic. Then, from my experiences as a gay rights activist, after interacting with Christian fundamentalists closely for years and knowing how they are and the less than Christ-like way they go about what they do, now, I'm totally an atheist.
Adam:No, I don't either. If there is a God, and that god is a worthwhile one, frankly, I'm liviing a very honest life so Pascal's Wager doesn't bother me, to be honest.
Now, if the all-mighty exists, but is an over-obsessive worship-hungry demon..
Well we're all screwed, arn't we?
Actually, this post of mine is relevant for the discussion here, so I get to blogwhore!
Freedom From Religion
Christianity is following the path that Jesus took on this earth. It's not about half the crap in bible which has nothing to do with Jesus, but is the ravings of half-starving madmen.
Look at the life Jesus lead, and try to emulate it as best as possible.
This means no Hummers, at the minimum.
and there's something about "the rich will go to heaven when a camel goes through the eye of a needle".
But Jesus didn't really mean that. He was just saying that going to church every Sunday makes up for wanton greed in a world of maass starvation.
skallas - agree with almost everything you said. Which is why, even after you've had this experience that Christians call "birth in the spirit," you still develop doubts, not certainty. Hence it remains a matter of faith. But, actually that experience is so powerful, and so unambiguous in the moment, that the simplest explanation is that you have been touched by the spirit of god. It'd be a real stretch to attribute it to morning paralysis or indigestion (both of which I'm familiar with). Your effort is to find the simplest explanation that explicitly does NOT involve God, which YOU define as way too complicated, rejecting the testimony of thousands of years of human history that keeeeeeps on suggesting, in the face of all "reason" that God is right through that door if you just knock. (But I doubt He's a Republican.)
Most humans , over the past thousands of years, didn't believe in God, but in gods - as in paganism. As in worshipping trees or zeus. How does that relate with Christianity ?
Thanks, God I have one question, what really is your homepage?
Ordinarily, one is not granted such knowledge until they face their final extremity. But then, what's a few months here or there?
Besides, In My wisdom I know you already suspected as much anyhow.
I'm always wary of Christians who they tell me that without god there is no morality, no right or wrong. I think they're revealing that they have a anti-social personality disorder and have no conscience. If you possess a normal healthy psyche you can feel empathy for your fellow man and can thus determine right from wrong without a higher power to give you a list of rules.
Religions technique consists in depressing the value of life and distorting the picture of the real world in a delusional manner - which presupposes an intimidation of the intelligence. At this price, by forcibly fixing them in a state of psychical infanilism and by drawing them into a mass-dillusion, religion succeeds in sparing many people an individual neurosis. But hardly anything more . . . If the believer finally sees himself obliged to speak of God's 'inscrutable decrees,' he is admitting that all that is left to him as a last possible consolation and source of pleasure in his suffering is an unconditional submission. And if he is prepared for that, he could probably have spared himself the detour he has made.
- Civilization and Its Discontents.
This means no Hummers, at the minimum.
Well, fuck that shit!
Oh wait... capital H...
Sorry.
skallas and Karmakin
It has less to do with authority or catharsis and more to do with the human genome and the volcanoes and coral reefs in Hawai'i. I agree with many atheists that this world is beautiful in itself and doesn't need to be part of a larger narrative. I just happen to believe it is.
And I agree with Jefferson that there has to be a wall between Church and State, and think the Bishops should look in the mirror before they attack Kerry.
My point is that non-believers should not get too smug in their own beliefs (or lack thereof) because there's always someone else out there smarter than you who believes the exact opposite. Just because some Catholics are morons doesn't mean that we all are (I refer the honorable posters to this article about one of the 'good guys' who is a devout Catholic .
FID
Well I think everyone about beat this subject to death.
I'm just going to say that I don't really care what any of you believe. Believe what you want, live long and prosper, and leave me out of it.
Let's make religion private again. Please, let's just it out of public life. I don't want to know about other people's religious faith anymore than I want to hear about their sex life.
So Atrios, are ya sorry you opened this can of worms?
Whenever I want to talk about religion in America I go back to da man. Thomas Jefferson!
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
I think what we're seeing now with the fundamentalists current rampage is the last spurt of Christianity in this country before it begins a long decline. I think if they push us into Armageddon, it will so discredit Christianity, that decline will be much faster. My fear is that we'll all have to live with those consequences if that happens, though.
bibbay - not talking about a specific religion when I refer to religious experience - by which I really mean whatever is analagous in those religions to birth in the spirit. I've only read a few accounts - Saul on the road to Tarsus, our buddy Pascal, who wager or not, actually had the same experience (read his letter from Provence). Almost all refer to the certainty of being touched by or held in the hand of God (or Zeus, I suppose.)
One of my favorite columnists is a Catholic priest. Andrew Greeley. Read him sometime.
Here's the address of the article about Sargent Shriver if my link doesn't work:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/2...ion/
23HERB.html
As a kid in nyc circa 50s',I found james joyce through a banned book list from a catholic newspaper.Since my local library did'nt carry such things,I travelled to a bohemian enclave called greenwich village to get the devils literature.I also stumbled upon some real beatnik stuff like ginsberg and burroughs and that pretty much sunk any admiration I had for religion.Talk about unintended consequences!
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."
Goodie, does this mean since I am not a real 'Merican nor a patriot that I get a refund on my past taxes taken wrongly. Only real 'Mericans should pay for God's good work in Iraq against terror, right? No gays in the military and certainly no atheists paying taxes, right? Right?
Good night folks. Thank you for the intelligent debate. Lately I've been a little put off by this blog, because strangely I've been taking a slight rightward turn. Still, I appreciate mature, measured argument.
Take care.
The Christian fundamentalists sense it's over but wrongly believe it's because we're living in the 'End-times.'
Hell, maybe we are. The muslim fanatics believe it, too. The other day, I heard Muslim cleric, Sadr, state that this is Armageddon. Really weird hearing them all saying the same thing. I don't know enough about Islamic End-times belief. But apparently, it's close to the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists.
My take on it (as an atheist rhetorician) is to say "I don't believe in God(s)," as opposed to saying, "I believe there is/are no God(s)." One is a negative statement denoting a lack of belief, the other is a positive statement denoting the non-existence of something. I'm not taking a position on that latter without sufficient evidence to the contrary.
People who confuse this issue drive me nuts, just like people who confuse the statements "I don't believe you" and "You're lying." The two are very different things. (You might, for instance, be mistaken about the thing of which you're trying to convince me, or I might just find your claim, however factual, to be hard to accept.)
Incidentally, Ph. and others, "sufficient evidence" is what distinguishes the kind of 'faith' one has that the Earth will keep rotating on its axis versus the kind of 'faith' (blind faith, to wit) one has -- lacking sufficient evidence, at least to my mind -- in all things supernatural and paranormal.
I'm not going to be running for public office any time soon, either. It's not much easier to be an elected atheist in Canada than it is in the US, although I will admit it's a lot easier to use the "NOYDB" tactic and give the press corps the finger.
Well I think everyone about beat this subject to death.
I'm just going to say that I don't really care what any of you believe. Believe what you want, live long and prosper, and leave me out of it.
Let's make religion private again. Please, let's just it out of public life. I don't want to know about other people's religious faith anymore than I want to hear about their sex life.
So Atrios, are ya sorry you opened this can of worms?
four legs good
Probably not four legs. This is a subject that can go on forever. I guarantee, comments will be over 500 before the morning.
Well I think everyone about beat this subject to death.
Like in that Mel Gibson movie!
Coincidence? I think not.
Grebb:that the simplest explanation is that you have been touched by the spirit of god
Now that's not only projection (you applying your assumptions on me) but is FAR, FAR from the simplest explanation or the most rational one. I also find it demeaning to hear a religious person "tell" another person what happened to them was a religious event but they are too dense to figure it out. In fact, I find that highly insulting.
For what its worth, many of these experiences I've mentioned I can easily reproduce. Over the years I've done everything from work with brain entrainment devices to learn hypnosis and everything more or less fits strictly into the scientific cosmology framework. Even better is that science is self-advancing, always working on improving old theories and sometimes starting new ones through strict its methodology.
Want to impress me, take your hackneyed theories, prove them, and go get a noble prize for your contribution to mankind. Somehow I expect never to see you anywhere other than on web boards spouting religios nonsense.
Thank god I'm an atheist....
Kornpone:
I'm dead serious. Religion is for people whose education, or lack thereof, did not properly prepare them for thinking through philosophical arguments.
Religion is entirely without foundation. The complete lack of evidence is simply stunning to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed to transmogrify a complete lack of evidence into the best kind of evidence. I speak of faith, the most corrupt and dishonest concept ever.
Kornpone:
I'm dead serious. Religion is for people whose education, or lack thereof, did not properly prepare them for thinking through philosophical arguments.
Religion is entirely without foundation. The complete lack of evidence is simply stunning to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed to transmogrify a complete lack of evidence into the best kind of evidence. I speak of faith, the most corrupt and dishonest concept ever.
WE NEED FREEDOM FROM RELIGION
The fundamentalists end-timers see 'signs' everywhere. They're highly activated and whacked right now. Back when the North-east had the black-out and thousands of people were walking out of downtown NYC, I had a fundamentalist end-timer tell me that was a sign of the End-times.
"If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today. He'd be gunned down cold by the CIA."
-Matt Johnson
Northeast
Another end-timer I spoke with online was hidden away in his home with a 357, refusing to come out because of West Nile virus and SARS. You could tell he was way past the edge looking at sanity in his rear-view mirror at that point.
RE: "fundamentalism"
I'm no biblical scholor, but what I've heard from this movement sounds more like afewselectpassagesism to me.
He was almost unable to even discuss what he felt was going on even online. This wasn't tin-foil hat territory here. This was a full aluminum foil body wrap.
Wow, great post, Atrios. As someone who personally battles with himself between being a bit hostile toward deeply religious people (not all--just the annoying ones) and wanting religious people to realize that the Left doesn't hate them and aren't bad for them, I think you just added a whole new thought process to my internal debate on the issue. I had never thought of things quite in that manner, though I'd say the elements were all there in my head. Thanks for laying it out in such an obvious manner.
- Joel
----
Nightmares For Sale - another damn blog (that you really should check out)
Fuck fundamentalists of all stripes.
Another Bruce:"Where is the voice of Christian liberalism these days?"
It is shouting into the wilderness, it feels like.
We shout into the desert about gay bishops, same-sex marriages, economic justice and staying out of completely unnecessary wars. We feel like those Testament prophets who thought no one was internalizing what they were saying and just knew Israel was going to get smacked again.
All the same, we shout. God has seen millenia of worship forms and instruments. What he cares about is why and what of we worship.
Like in that Mel Gibson movie!
Coincidence? I think not.
Thersites
Ha! funny as usual.
And of course I spoke too soon. Check of Kristof's column in the new pravda.
Hug an Evangelical
I wrote him and rather pointedly told him I'd be glad to hug one when they stopped telling me I was going to burn in hell for all eternity because I wasn't born again. I mean, really.
I hear there aren't any fundies in Australia. Floopmeister said it didn't catch on there- aussies thought the whole thing was retarded. Maybe that's where I should go.
God is dead, but we're not allowed to show pictures of the coffin.
+++
Should such existential places exist, I suspect that most people who consider themselves Christian will be sent to "God's Re-Education Encampment" where tender ministrations of horror and pain will show them the error of their ways. If there is a heaven, it will most likely be filled with poverty stricken types who shared their food, clothing and shelter in the spirit captured in the Bible.
Most small businessmen I know have a term for "Church"...it's called the poor man's country club. A place to go and for a few hours once a week feel superior to someone else. But they go in order to make a few contacts and pick up some business. I guess the moneychangers have retaken the temple.
I'd pray for their souls, but I'm a blues lover myself. And most of the WCM's I know deserve an eternal dose of the blues.
Hey Incognito, there was a huge upsurge in endtime-ism about the turn of the first millenium. In fact, St. Paul thought the world was gonna end any second. So it's not a new thing. Just a new version.
Bunch of wacky lunatics.
When it comes to religion, I cannot even muster the energy to assert that we should "just say no."
The appropriate response to religion, I think, is "just say 'meh'"
When it comes to religion, I cannot even muster the energy to assert that we should "just say no."
The appropriate response to religion, I think, is "just say 'meh'"
I don't know anything regarding the validity of this site. But it's owner/operator has put in a ton of time trying to publish information regarding relgion is all its varying flavors.
It has been the cause of several hours of neglected work, but the result has been some understanding of the "hyper-Calvinism" that seems to permeate this administration.
My take on it (as an atheist rhetorician) is to say "I don't believe in God(s)," as opposed to saying, "I believe there is/are no God(s)." One is a negative statement denoting a lack of belief, the other is a positive statement denoting the non-existence of something. I'm not taking a position on that latter without sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Is not the correct statement: "God is dead."
Or better yet. "There is not God."
If you have to resort to belief to prove there is no God, does this not contradict your argument?
Hold on a sec.
I agree with a lot of what Atrios originally said. I am an atheist-friendly, agnostic-friendly liberal Christian.
However, about halfway through his rant -- which is on target about the bigotry against non-Christians in this country -- he slows in some slams at liberal Christians which I think are pretty much unwarranted.
Separation of church and state? Please remember that Americans United for Separation of Church and State is headed by a liberal Christian minister. Liberal Christians -- such as myself -- really are on the forefront of many battles for justice, including such issues as gay rights.
We spend most of our time fighting the vastly more powerful right wing of Christianity. We need allies -- people who won't simply condemn us because we're Christians "like that Pat Robertson guy."
People who don't claim we're stupid or brainwashed or pathetic just because we follow the teachings of Christ and yet DON'T attempt to impose our religion on everyone. By and large, liberal Christians have great respect for atheists and agnostics, as well as people of all faiths. (Except for conservative evangelical Christians, in my case -- as an ex-conservative evangelical myself, I find that it is hard for me to be patient with those who haven't grown the hell up yet.)
I'm troubled and dismayed that Atrios is doing a trick similar to that employed regularly by Instapundit and other idiots on the right. They ask loaded questions like, "How come feminist groups never say anything bad about rapes in Afghanistan, and they spend all their time criticizing America?" Of course, the truth is that feminist groups have long spoken out on these issues, and idiots like Glenn Reynolds simply refuse to acknowledge their work, choosing instead to bring up the issue (which they don't normally give a damn about, since it's a leftie issue) just to attack the feminists.
In the same way, I feel that Atrios is asking, "How come we never hear anything from the Christian Left about separation of church and state, and they never criticize the Christian Right?" The fact is that we do that constantly, and it dismays me to see that Atrios refuses to see it.
I'm even more dismayed by the comments to his post that consist of bashing on ALL Christians including the Christian Left. We really do exist, guys, and we're on YOUR side.
--Kynn
Now that Nietzsche has been invoked, I think he said it best when he pointed out that people would sooner believe in something that doesn't exist than not believe at all...
More's the pity.
Christian Exceptionalists
Heh...
Now that Nietzsche has been invoked, I think he said it best when he pointed out that people would sooner believe in something that doesn't exist than not believe at all...
More's the pity.
rorschach
Me personally, I have no problem thinking that when I die, that's it. I've lived a great life but the best is still yet to come. What's wrong with it just being over?
I've also started a thread about this post -- and my response to it -- on the Christian Left livejournal community. If you can talk about this issue without calling leftist Christians morons, you're welcome to come over there. (This thread is pretty full already.)
Direct link: A Christian Left Response to Atrios
--Kynn
spocko,
Thanks for the link! This part is especially germane:
Well aware...that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it...
- Thomas Jefferson
The most likely evangelical I could hug would be my sister in law. But I just can't do it.
I mean literally, I can't do it. She has the most enormous ass in all the world. I could sort of mash myself into her while she flailed about my head with her meaty forearms, I suppose, but that wouldn't technically be a hug.
Yeah, that's mean, and I don't really do fat jokes, but dig this. She really is obese. She went on a mission to Haiti last fall, just before the shit hit the fan there. The area she went to was incredibly poor and what she was doing was helping to build a church. Now, before she left, she sent everyone in the family a letter asking us to pray for her to keep her safe from the voodoo spirits that were bound to attack her Christian purity while she was away.
So what was basically going on was this very, very well-fed white woman was going into these black people's country to ladle them food on the condition that they admit that their traditional beliefs were the work of the devil.
That may be religious, but it's not moral.
I'm right there with you on that, Incognito.
The whole thing rather baffles me. It is as though the entire world is pestering me to prove that a six-legged blue unicorn doesn't exist. And since I can't, then I am the freak for saying, well, maybe it just doesn't.
In the same way, I feel that Atrios is asking, "How come we never hear anything from the Christian Left about separation of church and state, and they never criticize the Christian Right?" The fact is that we do that constantly, and it dismays me to see that Atrios refuses to see it.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. No one is lumping main stream christians in with the fundies. You have to admit that it's tough these days to talk about separation of church and state or secularism without being branded as a godless heathen. I think that's his point.
4 Legs Good
Fuck Kristof.
Homosexuals say to evangelicals, leave us alone. Evangelicals say to homosexuals, we love you but you will roast in hell and you do not deserve equal rights under the Constitution.
Kristof says, let's give fair play to both sides.
Fuck Kristof.
Thersites, that's hilarious. I wonder if your sister in law knows that the 'speaking in tongues' phenomenon experienced in charismatic and pentacostal sects looks very much like the 'ridden by a loa' experience in Voodoo and Santaria?
Too bad they didn't turn her into a zombie while she was there.
And anyway, isn't gluttony a sin? what does jeebus think about all the food she consumes? or does she figure it doesn't matter cause she's gonna get rapturized?
Thersites, that was my reaction to Kristof too. Why should I be nice to them- they are FUCKING WACKOS.
End of freaking story.
Hey, I'm not the one claiming the earth is 6,000 years old and that man and dinosaurs were on the earth simultaneously.
I'd prefer to hug my cat or a tree.
oy. down to fat jokes now? That is rather depressing.
without being branded as a godless heathen. I think that's his point.
four legs good
Now, imagine telling people you're a liberal, atheist homosexual. Christian people, which most are, run disturbed screaming into the night pulling their hair.
Four Legs Good:
Here is what Atrios said:
It's time for liberalish Christians to tell their slightly more right-leaning brethren that those of us who fight to maintain the separation between Church and State do it to protect freedom of religion - not destroy it.
There are plenty of "liberalish Christians" who do indeed "tell" the right-leaning Christians that separation of church and state protects religion. And there are plenty of "liberalish Christians" who are part and parcel of "those of us who fight" for it.
Why is Atrios pretending like it's only atheists and agnostics who fight this fight? The Christian Left is very much engaged in this battle, and has been for years. For Atrios to claim that we're not doing our part is as ridiculous as Glenn Reynolds pretending that human rights groups only attack America.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with nearly every other paragraph from Atrios. But the one in which he bashes the Christian Left for not doing something which we already do is simply out of line.
--Kynn
Christian people, which most are, run disturbed screaming into the night pulling their hair.
Too bad they don't just keep running till they're rapturized! now that would be cool.
Hey, I'm not the one claiming the earth is 6,000 years old and that man and dinosaurs were on the earth simultaneously.
I'd prefer to hug my cat or a tree.
four legs good
Yeah, agreed, fundamentalists do a lot of good increasing their economic base in homophobic Africa while doing their best to hurt gays in this society, here. What's Kristoff's point? It's not so bad hurting gays because they really don't matter, anyway?
By the way, I refuse to call them evangelicals. They took to calling themselves that after 911 to sound almost "angelic." Go figure. Prior, they proudly proclaimed they were "fundamentalists."
Christian people, which most are, run disturbed screaming into the night pulling their hair.
Too bad they don't just keep running till they're rapturized! now that would be cool.
four legs good
What would be really kewl if their hair was on fire...
Atrios - best. post. ever.
You're going to Hell for that.
Just so you know.
Now, imagine telling people you're a liberal, atheist homosexual. Christian people, which most are, run disturbed screaming into the night pulling their hair.
Not all Christian people. Many of liberal Christians prefer the company of liberal atheist homosexuals to that of conservative homophobic Christians.
--Kynn
Amen! (sorry.)
Well-posted. This isn't 1950 after all - there can be no threat from the 'godless Reds' anymore. The godless Reds are our friends!
(I'm Episcopalian, nominally, but call me 'questioning' at times.)
They took to calling themselves that after 911 to sound almost "angelic."
The terms long predate 9/11. Actually evangelical is much older. It refers specifically to the four books of the New Testament, a bit more loosely to a protestant literal biblical interpretation & religious organization, and a bit more loosely still to active proslytization. Fundamentalism refers mostly to hardcore biblical literalism and I think came into the language around 1920.
By the way, I refuse to call them evangelicals. They took to calling themselves that after 911 to sound almost "angelic." Go figure. Prior, they proudly proclaimed they were "fundamentalists."
Inaccurate. "Evangelicals" long preceeds 9/11 and doesn't have to do with being "angelic."
It used to be that there was such a thing as "evangelicals", and some of them were "conservative evangelicals," and if you went out on the far right side, you found "fundamentalists."
Now, however, the fundamentalists have succeeded in co-opting the evangelical movement so much that there aren't non-conservative evangelicals (in any large numbers), and those who call themselves "conservative evangelicals" are in fact indistinguishable from "fundamentalists."
--Kynn
You mean to tell me that man and dinosaur weren't on earth at the same time. Where did they get the stories for land of the lost?
Agreed, Kynn - Rowan Williams may not be an atheist, but he's no homophobe either.
Great post Atrios,
Living in the bible belt as I do, one has to put up with a lot of this Christian victimhood.
One thing that I find annoying is how right-wing Christian always moan about "not being allowed to pray in school." In reality, there is nothing preventing them from praying in school... they are simply prevented from using the resources of the government (e.g. a school's PA system) to lead others in prayer.
Nuance is lost on them.
Shorter Atrios:
Political operatives who hide behind the beard of God deserve no quarter.
Here's a direct quote from some right-wing Christian nutjob on a documentary produced by the Biblical America Resistance Front website www.barf.org
"We're not dealing with a battle about um, euthanasia, or abortion, or homosexuality, or clean needles, we're dealing with two worldviews, a culture of death, versus a culture of life. And the homosexual worldview, is exactly the same as the worldview of abortion. You know what it is? It's my rights, my body, my choice, my thing, you don't tell me what to do. I'll do what I want, whenever I want to, and the one commmandment I have, is thou shalt not get into my face, and don't you dare judge me. On the other side of that is a worldview that brings life, which says that you are not your own, you were bought with a price, therefore glorify God, and your body. But it's not my body, I don't belong to me anymore, you see it's not a battle about abortion or homosexuality, it's a battle about whose laws reign. Or who is lord, and we're saying that Jesus is Lord, and Mickey is not."
Translation: You don't have the right to ignore religion anymore, screw Justice William Brandeis and his thoughts on the matter that the right to privacy is the right to be left alone. We're Christians, and therefore we want you to be Christian as well. So we're going to tell you how to live your life.
This is why I hate the fucking fundamentalist Christians. I am a Deist, if there is a god, he does not give a shit about any of us, and I'm perfectly entitled to that belief. But now according to these assholes. I've always said and I'll say it here, "The last minority that will ever be elected President of the United States won't be a woman, or a Jew, or a Hispanic, or even a black man, it will be an atheist, an avowed atheist."
Now, however, the fundamentalists have succeeded in co-opting the evangelical movement so much that there aren't non-conservative evangelicals (in any large numbers), and those who call themselves "conservative evangelicals" are in fact indistinguishable from "fundamentalists."
--Kynn
Kynn
Seems funny to me, I never heard "evangelicals" until after 911. Prior, I only heard them loudly calling themselves "Christian fundamentalists".....
Why is Atrios pretending like it's only atheists and agnostics who fight this fight? The Christian Left is very much engaged in this battle, and has been for years.
I can see where you're coming from, Kynn. But note that Atrios doesn't exactly say "liberal Christians." He says "liberalish Christians." The reference isn't to sincere liberal Christians but to spineless "liberals" (ie congrssional Democrats) who won't challenge fundie excesses because of craven political calculation.
Prior to 911, Jerry Falwell never called himself "evangelical." That was seemingly too weak for him. He always called his movement, "Christian fundamentalism."
Seems funny to me, I never heard "evangelicals" until after 911. Prior, I only heard them loudly calling themselves "Christian fundamentalists".....
Well, what I wrote is true -- but the response after 9/11 pretty much was the proof-in-the-pudding that the evangelical movement had been successfully co-opted by fundamentalists.
(One thing amusing is that some who call themselves "conservative evangelicals" object to the "fundie" term. Even though they're culturally, theologically, and politically indistinguishable.)
Thersites: I can see where you're coming from, Kynn. But note that Atrios doesn't exactly say "liberal Christians." He says "liberalish Christians." The reference isn't to sincere liberal Christians but to spineless "liberals" (ie congrssional Democrats) who won't challenge fundie excesses because of craven political calculation.
Well, if that's what he's saying, then he needs to be more clear -- and the folks on this thread who call me an idiot for believing in God really need to start realizing there's a difference between me and the fundamentalist whackjobs.
--Kynn
I wonder if your sister in law knows that the 'speaking in tongues' phenomenon experienced in charismatic and pentacostal sects looks very much like the 'ridden by a loa' experience in Voodoo and Santaria?
What was messed up was that she told us about the evil voodoo threat in a letter which asked us to offer her protection from the demonic forces by forming a "prayer circle." Why she wanted us to do this when my wife deliberately pisses her off at family parties by loudly talking about Harry Potter and I provoke her by openly drinking whiskey was beyond us. But more to the point was that it seemed like she was asking for us to help her do stronger good magic than the bad magic she was afraid of. Just fucking nuts.
Kynn, well, Atrios can defend himself. But I think there's a distinction between "liberal' and "liberalish," that's all. Dona Nobis Pacem, bwana.
I wonder if your sister in law knows that the 'speaking in tongues' phenomenon
My mamaw 'spoke in tongues.' I think it's kewl, now.
And another person realizes they are trapped in a religious war whether they want to be or not.
Two words:
Elmer Gantry.
With rare exceptions, religion is the problem, not the solution.
Great post, great comments.
And another person realizes they are trapped in a religious war whether they want to be or not.
IXLNXS
Atrios and others are trying to bring attention to this. But it's too late. The fundamentalists are in complete control: Sharon/Bush. Because of your hetero inaction over the last two decades, you'll all reap the whirlwind of your inaction and you don't even know it, yet. You're totally blind-sided. Me personally, it's hilarious. After you've ignored the miserable treatment of gays over decades by these people which you've never given a shit about, those same who've harrassed us for years are fucking up your world, worse and worse, daily. Too funny.
Because of your hetero inaction over the last two decades, you'll all reap the whirlwind of your inaction and you don't even know it, yet. You're totally blind-sided. Me personally, it's hilarious. After you've ignored the miserable treatment of gays over decades by these people which you've never given a shit about, those same who've harrassed us for years are fucking up your world, worse and worse, daily.
I'm confused, which hetero inaction by whom?
Who has been ignoring the fundamentalists?
Who the heck are you talking to?
--Kynn
Karma is a mother fucker and in so many numerous ways, it will be coming....
I'm confused, which hetero inaction by whom?
Who has been ignoring the fundamentalists?
Who the heck are you talking to?
--Kynn
Kynn
See, you don't even know. I'm not going to write a long, 'let me count the ways.'
I wont write anything, Kynn.
No more. I've written millions of words over the years. I'm not writting much anymore. Ever.
Because my spellin' sukcs: writing.
Atrios,
We, the religious liberals, have been taking on the religious right all over the place while you secular liberals have been shaking your fists and doing very little to help, and then you want to make fun of us on your radio station.
We do the heavy lifting and all you do is bitch and try to pretend that you are " the left " when we've been feeding the hungry and clothing the weary for a century before you even knew there was a fight.
Quit your bitching. Until you've stepped up to the plate and done some of the dirty work, you are a toy liberal. Don't like the churches? Fine. Don't join one. But where are your effing soup kitchens and housing programs, you limousine liberals?
[It's very late and I've no time to read 360-plus comments, but I'll post my 2 cents]
Atrios: In addition, I'm a bit fed up with people hand-wringing about anti-religious sentiment from "the Left."
Sorry, Atrios--I guess you're tired of me, then. Of course we need to vigorously resist the sociopolitical marginalization of atheists and stand up for continued separation of church and state. But, as annoying as cultural mainstreaming of Christianity can be, and no matter how pathetic the claims of "victimization" from members of the country's dominant religion, I still firmly believe it's unhelpful for liberals to ridicule Christianity as part of any political platform or serious public discourse. Is it "hand-wringing" to say that?
I wrote a fairly long comment over at Calpundit when he raised the issue there...basically, we just can't afford to cede the powerful symbols of the Flag and the Cross to the GOP. Like it or not, these symbols constitute the frame through which a huge slice of America perceives the world. These people aren't all far-out fundies, and while we don't need to make ourselves into doormats to reach the saner ones, it would sure help to avoid insulting them, 'cause I'd love to see a lot of them (people like my parents and extended family, for instance) pulling the lever for the Dems in November.
You can have the greatest policy initiative imaginable, but present it in a cultural frame that says, implicitly or explicitly, "You Xtians are all nutters and back-country rubes for believing in that Santa Claus bullshit" and you'll soon be learning the answer to that Zen question, "what's the sound of one hand clapping?" as your audience heads for the exits.
I think it's possible to approach this issue in a principled, "big-tent", "live-and-let-live" manner that is neither pandering nor antagonistic. One can stand up for, say, choice and evolution without trashing opponents' core beliefs (cf. "hate the the sin, not the sinner" ). Catharsis (humor, e.g.) definitely has its utility, but it's not especially helpful as part of the public face of liberalism.
I say all this as an avowed atheist with a private disdain for much of organized religion...take it as you will.
OK, just read up-thread a bit...I am longer Balisardo.
Most of these comments are as intolerant as any a right winger could come up with. You want to blame Christianity for the world's ills....all the wars and death in the name of Christ. Well what about all the deaths in the name of those godless communists in Russia. What, 25 million under Stalin alone? What about the deaths under the Khmer Rouge, in the Sudan, Rawanda, the Mideast. And there is no doubt that Hitler was not a Christian. He admitted in private writings and conversations to cynically using Christianity to brainwash the people of Germany to do truly unchristian things. Men do the ugly things in this world. But they also do some very beautiful things. It was the west and Christianity that were among the first to disavow slavery, beginn t protect the rights women and children. Many churches were very powerful in the Civil Rights movement and the antiwar movement... in harboring refugees, caring for the poor. Christ's teachings were beautiful and at the same time took full account of human beings' failings. And loves us anyhow. Just like I love you all!
Christian history is fascinating.. you should read up on it some time. Not just the bad things, the good things too. There are plenty of both. Man is not perfect. Especially white men, who I think are probably the least religious group in this country. I would bet my life that people of color in this country are much more religious on average than white people. Sometimes it seems like white people are losing their souls and hearts to science. Most people I know (who are mostly not white people) find room for faith and science. And I always know I can piss off my atheist friends by asking just exactly how that first thing got here...whether we are talking string theory, parallel universes, or big bang, expanding, contracting universe, whatever. It could have happened any of those ways or some other way for all I know. Either way, I think people and the world are miracles.
just a thought...
Atrios,
After re-reading your rant, I find that you are simply ignorant. We've been doing all the things you bitch about and doing them for decades. You just can't be bothered to educate yourself to the fact.
Like the rest of the secular left, you bloviate rather than educate. Show me the social justice programs you've built and worked in and then you'll have a little cred with me.
Sigh. We live in a country where brainwashing/indoctrination of our young to be Christians (e.g., the Santa Claus myth is replaced with the Jesus myth) and warmongers (e.g., high school football) is the norm.
What are we going to do? As much as I dislike all that, I suspect that the small amount of morality we do have would be even less without organized religion.
People have to be trained to function in society -- religion is a useful tool for doing that. Now, if we could just improve the religious indoctrination.....but I guess to do that we have to be involved in the religion, not outside of it throwing stones.....
Jenny: And I always know I can piss off my atheist friends by asking just exactly how that first thing got here...
That pisses off your atheist friends? Too bad for them...I think it's a damn good question! Rejecting the concept of God or religion shouldn't exempt one from pondering the mysteries of the universe.
BTW, the "godless communists" in my post comment was just a bit of silly sarcasm....
First of all Christianity is a religion of the Left, full-stop, as Nietzsche said, it is a "slave religion", that is a religion created by and for the poor and dispossessed.
With that said, the Faux Christians on the Right are charlatans and hate everything about Christianity, therefore they try to corrupt it into a right-wing, pro-rich, pro-corporate, pro-war ideology that Jesus would be physically sick from if he were made aware that it was being pursued and justified in his name.
Now we have Rapture-crazed robots being spued out of fundamentalist Madarases across America and infesting our government with their ideas of resurrecting the Crusades and starting an end-times holy war in which Israeli Prime Minister Charon will ferry us all to the underworld.
These Madarases of Hate are the single biggest threat to America and the sleeper Rapture-jihadists that they are placing in critical positions around the country will be the death of us all if we do not start acting now.
"Jenny: And I always know I can piss off my atheist friends by asking just exactly how that first thing got here...
That pisses off your atheist friends? Too bad for them...I think it's a damn good question! Rejecting the concept of God or religion shouldn't exempt one from pondering the mysteries of the universe.
Turbonium | Email | Homepage | 04.24.04 - 5:54 am | #"
Turbonium....I think it is a wonderful question too. In my mind, the idea that we or anything at all exists is nothing short of miraculous. I don't claim that that proves the existence of God, but it does prove the existence of miracles. It's the people who are too taken with science that get upset by that type of question...I love to think of it.
I don't believe for a second that George or any of the other high financed conservative "christians" in the United States believe in any god but money. And I really do mean that. The rest is a pretense just like the Catholicism of Pope Alexander VI or most of the "Most Christian Majesties" who ever sat on any throne. You think Leopold X believed in a single word that came out of Jesus' mouth? No doubt he thought Africa was worth a mass and no doubt some well placed clerical bribes.
Acn you also consider that there are some people who by their actions seem to really believe that Jesus was telling the truth? While I wouldn't put it exactly the same way, Melanie makes a valid point. Most of the liberal Christian adgenda and PRACTICE is identical to the secular liberal adgenda. It seems not only unfair but silly to discount their real work in trying to bring about justice and peace here and now.
And unlike the fundamentalist riders on the new gravey train, just about all liberal Christians who have any experience with the kind of volunteer work know that it is a drop in the bucket and can't make more than a dent in these problems without government programs. It wasn't the liberal Christians who pushed Bush's plan to turn a small part of the federal government into a piggy bank for fat and happy pastors. And they weren't the ones who refused accountability.
In general I've found that religous liberals are dependable, unlike lots of the anti-religous liberals I've run across. They're the ones turn neo-con.
Thank God it's not yet for George the Pharisee to decide who gets to be a citizen, yet. With a lot of work by all liberals it may never happen.
Tell the Pope to but out of American politics, vote for the Catholic in 2004
The ex-Catholic EPT
The great thing about christianity is that, like fog, it only looks like a monolithic entity from a distance. The closer you get, the better you see the schisms and infighting that keep it from being a truly terrifying force for any great length of time. As an atheist I'm not really worried. Christians pick themselves apart when given any breathing room, as do the muslims or any other aggressive religion.
"Hug an Evangelical", hug a nut Kristof.
Ever notice, most of the new buildings going up? Either banks or churches. Damn persecuted capitalist and bilble bangers.
How can you run 90percent of the friggin country and be so persecuted?
My cable outlet has 10 christan stations and Fox news fuckers from wall to wall. Yea, I fell sorry for the hipocritcal bastards.
add a t to that.
My cable outlet has 10 christan stations and Fox news fuckers from wall to wall. Yea, I fell sorry for the hipocritcal bastards.
Richard
Are you counting the sports stations to the 10? Nothing is more disgusting than hearing a millionaire jock, rich for playing a little boy's gave, taking full advantage of the idiots who will sleep with them, taking drugs, kneeling on the football field in front of their bump and grind gals and making a display of religon. It's even worse when they preach.
Cable religon is worth even less than cable news.
It's a littl old and tiring to have a banger compare religious wars to commie doings; as if it's ok for the religious nuts to kill in the name of god, cause some commie committed similar atrocities. Ole Jehovah is full of smiting down anyone not agreeing with him, but that's alright cause Stalin and Moa were bastards.
Another thing, I'll eat fuckin dung beatles and grass before going to your religious soup kitchen for a dose of horse hockey along with my swill.
A man asked Mr. K whether there is a God. Mr. K. said: "I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer, your behavior would change. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have alredy decided: you need a God."
EPT:
Know what you mean. This is one reason I have sworn off pro sports.
I will not continue supporting these rich, spoiled republican bastards playing childs games.
Dubya found god. Need more be said?
jennybravo, instead of believing in 'miracles' have a look into complexity theory and emergent complexity from simple systems. Also don't assume there was a 'before' before the Big Bang (or whatever marks the 'beginning' of existence). Your perception of time as a sequential series of events is just the interpretation that your brain as it is wired up presents to your mind. The universe isn't strictly 3-dimensional and Newton's laws of motion (which would seem to be axiomatic and intuitive) have been superseded by Einstein's theories of relativity. Your question that you love to ask your atheist friends is pretty meaningless from a modern scientific viewpoint.
Melanie, I just love your sweeping generalisation "Like the rest of the secular left", as well as your assumption that anyone who isn't religious could give a shit about anyone else. Ever hear of the Red Cross? Religious people in the US are more likely than those elsewhere to shove their religiosity in your face and give you the holier-than-thou treatment, which is why they move in on and dominate charities so they can give their religiosity the hard sell.
Wow.A lot of anger here.Anger that is somewhat understandable but I think it goes too far.Many people made good points on both sides, but christian doesn't always equal right wing.I'm not religious, but as I got older I realized that the christian faith is much more diverse then I thought.Hey I've had my bad experiences to like being told I'm going to hell countless times.But I met secular folks that are just as ignorant.And Melanie as well as jeenybravo do make valid points that should not be ignored.So yeah.
"And I always know I can piss off my atheist friends by asking just exactly how that first thing got here..."
Nice try Jenny, but since I presume that you believe the 'first thing got there' courtesy of GOD, maybe YOU'D like to explain how GOD got there!! If you need a God to start that 'first thing', dosen't that logically make God the first thing? And how is it any more logical to say that 'God' didn't need to be created than it is to say that the universe itself didn't need to be created? If your response is that God was 'just there' from the beginning, well, why can't the same go for the universe? well you can call the existence of existence a miracle if you want, but please don't put it into the same category as fairy-tales about virgin births etcetera.
Turbonium....I think it is a wonderful question too. In my mind, the idea that we or anything at all exists is nothing short of miraculous. I don't claim that that proves the existence of God, but it does prove the existence of miracles. It's the people who are too taken with science that get upset by that type of question...I love to think of it.
jennybravo | Email | Homepage | 04.24.04 - 6:03 am | #
People who are "taken with science" don't have a problem with asking about the origin of the universe.
After all, the only people trying to answer that question in a real way are scientists.
It doesn't prove "miracles," whatever that means. It just proves that our body of knowledge is incomplete.
It probably never will be complete.
There's nothing miraculous about not knowing... though it may seem miraculous to think you know when you really don't.
I participated in the Kevin Drum thread that upset Atrios.
I'm not a Christian anymore, but I was raised in a liberal Protestant household, with a number of pastors among my relatives.
I'm impressed with the passion shown by the atheists here, and I agree with much of what they have to say. Yet I think that many of them contain basic misconceptions about Christianity and Christians, as does Atrios' original post.
The main thing is - many Christians are the same as you, with the exception that they have religious faith. That is the point that Kynn has been trying to make, I think. They share your convictions about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, and they fight for those convictions. They are friendly towards people in other religions, or people with no religion.
Not only that, but historically Mainline Protestant churches were the ur-liberal organizations in this country. In the 1960s white support of the Civil Rights movement was spearheaded by liberal Protestant and Jewish denominations (along with the labor movement). They weren't just along for the ride. They led it.
You may not notice the fact that millions of Christians are actively involved in progressive causes precisely because such people don't wear their beliefs on their sleeves. But a cursory look at the web site of the National Council of Churches shows how intense that involvement is.
So why insult them? As I said on the other site, hearing dumb jokes about their beliefs on liberal radio is not going to make liberal Christians more right-wing. It may just turn them off. But what's the point?
BTW - to Atrios - a basic point. Episcopalians, and Quakers are not part of the same "Church" as Southern Baptists. "Church" in that context implies denomination. Their Churches aren't waging an "assault on Democratic (and only Democratic) politicians who deviate from doctrine", and they already are "taking a stand against it".
But where are your effing soup kitchens and housing programs, you limousine liberals?
Melanie
Why, obviously you've never heard of organizations like Second Harvest which are religious organizations.
Never heard of it, or you consciously ignore it.
Now, ignoring the facts is the problem we have with fundamentalists.
And don't give me the empty limousine liberal line. My parents never went to college, and I had to work my way through that and grad school. Very few liberals are as rich as the manipulative pseudo-christian $yndicate running this country.
Dear dear dear, so many people wilfully misinterpreting Atrios. Thanks spiritraveller and all the rest of you.
PS Anyone any idea how many Americans declared themselves to be of the 'Jedi' religion in the last census? I know not, but there was some kind of campaign in the last British census to get 'Jedi' on as a minority faith...
now the preacher looked so baffled when i asked him why he dressed
with twenty pounds of head lines
stapled to his chest.
then he cursed me when i proved it to him, then i whispered,"not even you can hide. you see you're just like me,
I hope you're satisfied." Oh Mama, can this really be the end...
--------------------------------
you may call me Terry or you may call me Timmy. You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy. but no matter what you say -
You're gon-na have to serve some body.
organizations like Second Harvest which aren't religious organizations
One of these days I will learn to write.
I promise, Atrios.
Excellent post, by the way.
oooh, Jedi, I like that, TheaLogie.
May the Force be with you all.
Now there's a religion I can accept, except the celibate "no attachments" part Yoda dug on.
It's a lot easier when you're 3 ft high, 800 years old, and surrounded by short-lived loudmouthed giants, I guess.
Maybe Jedi-Trekkie reconstructionism is what I need to retain my citizenship in the New Wepublic.
Or the SubGenius Church.
"With that said, the Faux Christians on the Right are charlatans and hate everything about Christianity, therefore they try to corrupt it into a right-wing, pro-rich, pro-corporate, pro-war ideology that Jesus would be physically sick from if he were made aware that it was being pursued and justified in his name."
Hey, somebody want to mention to Jesus that people have been fucking with his name?
But, seriously, just because a lot of people on the left criticize religion doesn't mean they're anti-religion. I for one respect anybody's right to superstitions(with nod to David Cross).
Gotta go. Gotta beat the church crowd to the super-mini...one of the few benefits of agnosticism.
sheople are still in territorial pissing stage of evolution - you have to expect the stupid blind faith worship...
Atrios sorry to tell you, but you are more evolved than repugs and moral/religious zealots. Evolution is a curse for those of us who have evolved beyond the average.
Religious zealots, worshipping violence (like only enjoying violent movies, video games, etc..) can't possibly be a forward leap in evolution - instead they are both holding onto the past.
Only when humanity is mostly on our level atrios, will we see positive political change...we need a new ENLIGHTENMENT to take us out of these DARK AGES....
To answer Atrios' rant seriously...
These so-called Christians know no shame. A perfect example of their exploitation of tragedies is their whisper campaign/ mass e-mails after the Columbine school massacre. First they spread the lie about Cassie Bernall, claiming she was shot because of her declaration of faith to the killers. And the Columbine Christian martyr cottage industry was born!
Cassie Bernall
Here's one of the debunkings of this "urban myth":
Columbine Martyr debunked
When this story was debunked, Rachel Scott became their new Columbine Christian martyr, and their cottage industry was saved!
Rachel Scott
And when you confront these liars (or the people forwarding these chain e-mails), they to justify it by claiming: "these stories should be true" or "there is a higher truth". blah... blah...
Fundies are Morans, lets move to cleveland.
sheople is so imprecise- a term also used by white supramacists- and a slur to the ovine everywhere.
Never met a sheep that tried to convert me or beat me up.
"how is it any more logical to say that 'God' didn't need to be created than it is to say that the universe itself didn't need to be created?"
Parmenides demonstrated this nearly 2500 years ago: "What is, is, and cannot be what is not." In other words, reality exists because it can't possibly not exist; and nothingness doesn't exist because it can't exist. But I'm not going to argue here with everyone who thinks rationalist arguments like this are invalid.
RINO - phew, that is worrying, creating a cult around something that very probably never happened.
Please don't tar all Christians with the same brush tho'.
Great post, Atrios.
Didn't read all the comments, but was this in response to Kristof's NYTimes column?
According to K., I'm a bigot. I'm anti-evangelical, Rapture Christians!
But, as Atrios pointed out, Kristof says nothing about nonbelievers, nothing about how one could not be elected in this country to anything.
When Kristof writes a column about hugging a nonbeliever, I'll examine my conscience about my attitudes around bigoted Christians, Muslims and all the other religious groups that are causing death and destruction in this world. Sheesh.
creating a cult around something that very probably never happened
the Bible was written a generation after Jesus died.
Paul never met Jesus, at all. He had a vision that stopped him from crucifying christians and turned him into a prosletizer.
Revelations was a hallucination of Paul's.
Creating a cult around something that never really happened.
"So Many Right-Wing Christians . . . So Few Lions." Kristof, on T-Shirts
so many monkys' six billion and counting. might be time for a little pruning.
Lions are the only other large mammal that once populated the whole globe.
myself, i shook off the Jesus thing 20 some yrs ago. nope, don't believe in Jesus. then again i don't believe in NATION STATES, or democracy, either.
the 'causes of all wars can be attributed to religion/nationalism.
"Success implies brutality" J.Krishnamurti
It's 8:00 am EDT and there are not, as someone predidcted earlier, 500 posts. But it's gettin' there.
And I think of a Jung quote "Religion is some people's way of avoiding a spiritual experience."
I used to attend a Unitarian universalist congregation. It's gay freindly, and you could even be a Republican atheist (there were a couple!) I got burned out on the business of keeping a organization going. Sorta like the character in Henry Adams' "Democracy" -"She had stopped attending church becaous it gave her profoundly unchristian feelings."
This is an important issue that I am glad you have brought up. I'm an atheist, and I'm an American -- and I deeply resent it when officials in power try to marginalize me or dispute my patriotism because of it.
the world is getting more complex all the time
the sheople are scared
religion takes advantage by focusing the sheople's fear
against their fellow man.
=====
Patty and Jerry are we.
We were put on this earth to see That your souls are kept pure,
And to really make sure,
That your ride to the sky isn't free.
Let's see what the Christian Left has done, in this country and around the world...
Well, first this country was born out of religious dissenters, Christians who wanted to start a root and branch reformation. So I guess you could say we helped to start America (with all of its Constitutional protections). Then you have the Quakers who came up with the price tag and the soft drink and have spoken against war in all its forms. You have the guys like Roger Williams, religious but the most vigorous advocates of seperation of church and state in this country (everyone links to Thomas Jefferson, who didn't write one word of the Consitutiton, but never to the religious guys advocating seperation).
It was Christian groups that led the way in protesting against the slave trade and against slavery in general, who advocated for women's suffrage, and progressive income taxation.
Modern Christians and groups have been behind founding international institutions like the EU and the UN. Have you ever read Dag Hammarskjold's Markings?
Many have been for worker's rights, third world debt relief, against capital punishment and torture, and against war.
Reverend Martin Luther King was well, a reverend. Oscar Romero advocated for liberation theology in Central America.
We could go on and on.
I think I know the faces of the Christian Left very well. I think they have done more than enough to advocate around the globe for human rights and Christian values.
What Me said... just a pity that they're getting outshouted by the Christian Right at the moment.
Atrios is pretty clear in his last graf that he's not calling for the abolition of religion but is insisting on its separation from the nation's political discourse.
I believe it was just yesterday the Vatican encouraged priests to not administer the sacraments to politicians who support abortion. And of course the beloved Mother Theresa, while hanging out with Princess Di and excusing her divorce, camapaigned in Ireland to retain the law outlawing divorce and assure all divorced women they were going to hell.
As a gay man I have been the object of religious hatred long before the evangelistic right organized to oppose the general population's bodily freedoms. And like it or not, the Judaeo-Christian tradition has been the dominant paradigm of our culture. No only does that paradigm require inhibition of individual freedom of the body, but it also requires, like all monotheism, a reduction to polar opposites of every issue. In the monotheistic tradition, there is only Satan and Christ, John Kerry or Dubya. The more religion insinuates itself into political discourse, the more it insists on the division America suffers now. The melting pot is coagulating into opposites.
All that said, I have to note that within religious structures, I have met many amazing people. When all my friends were dying of AIDS early in the epidemic and doctors and nurses literally would not go into their hospital rooms, it was nuns and priests who took care of them. If you spend time in South America, you will find that the most progressive agendas are advanced by members of the liberation theology movement. (Marcella Althaus-Reid has offered a really revoutlionary queering of god in recent texts.) Paolo Freire is out of liberation theology/psychology and his text, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" is still a manual for revolutionizing the conditions of the oppressed. And I remember, too, that it was radical priests who led many of the Vietnam War protests. JEsus, I spent time at the Vatican a few years ago with a priest who is, with full Vatican cooperation, writing a book about cross-dressing and the priesthood.
I think we have many allies among people of faith, who are inspired to relieve suffering. The difference between them and Pat Robertson and the pope is that they are not trying to canonize dogma as secular law.
Right on. This sacred cow along with the vaunted "family" as opposed to those who choose not to breed really are the most favored interest groups in the country.
I dont give a damn what religion (if any) anybody believes in. They can think whatever they want. What really grates is people trying to talk me into their particular brand of belief. That is the most UNhumble thing I have ever had to deal with. So here is a piece of advice to the evangelically inclined.
Convince by example, please. If your life looks better than mine I will come to your side soon enough.
Dont "share" your beliefs with me. You are just behaving like an arrogant know it all. You rub more people the wrong way than you attract with that kind of behavior.
Just once, ask somebody what THEIR beliefs are without telling them about your own. Think of it as an exercise in humility. You might even learn something.
Christian history is fascinating..
Jennybravo, I'll buy this if 'fascinating' includes the brutal parts and the sexism, etc.
"i don't care if there is a god or not. but if there is - i wish it would leave us alone.
evildoer"
Ummmmm, what makes you think It doesn't?
Streaker, read 'The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Crusades' - bright orange cover, can't remember the author, but that's got bucketloads of brutality and religion. And it doesn't even mention the Albigensian Crusade...
I just wish Kerry -- or any politician -- would say "I'm not going to debase God by using the deity as a campaign issue."
Did Jesus not say to give one's money
to the poor and to pray alone?
Aaaamen, Brother!
When Kristof writes a column about hugging a nonbeliever, I'll examine my conscience about my attitudes around bigoted Christians, Muslims and all the other religious groups that are causing death and destruction in this world.
Shaw Kenawe
Sheesh, Shaw, why wait for Kristof -- that's a sure way to lose! Come to Salt Lake City and I'll give you a bigggg hug, then we can carry our anti-war signs down to the county building and stand for awhile.
And, since I can have it both ways, if I wanna:
"Don't you know there aint no Devil/
That's just God, when He's drunk.
Tom Waits
Fuckin' A, A!
LOL Hudson. Since I grew up not believing in Santa Claus, I didn't let my children either. Was considered cruel by my in-laws. I have always tried to tell the truth to my kids, and this stupidity felt like lying.
Think the Christmas do-dad that offends me the most is the one with Santa praying in front of the baby Jesus. Talk about mixing religion with fairies.
ellroon | Email | Homepage | 04.24.04 - 12:34 am
In a different age, I attended a fundie church (6-8 years total as an adolescent, depending on how you count), and I met a really interesting guy there who explained Santa Claus to his kids at a very early age because he didn't want to tell them that the tooth fairy gives them a quarter for their teeth and then have them find out that it isn't so and tell them that Santa gives them presents at Xmas and then have them find out that it isn't so and tell them that Jesus saves them from their sins....
Wise. But still twisted.
Sorry--forgot to mention the Easter Bunny.
Chocolate eggs for everyone!!!
Recently, I let it be known to my employer I didn't believe in his little tribal superstitions. As politely and without critcism as I could (why are we the ones always being polite about this) I told him I was an atheist and I was uninterested in talk about religion.
I sat there atmy desk and listened as he walked down the hall telling my coworkers, "I'm very sad. I just found out Joe believes we all descend from monkeys. I don't know if I feel confident working with him any more."
(Funny, I might have said the same thing, if I were an asshole)
He made comments over the next few days to at least a dozen people that I work with indicating he was now distrustful of me since I have not accepted Jesus as my personal blha blah blah. He told people I work with that I was not to be trusted because I didn't believe in God and he indicated he felt his own working relationship with me (he is the one who signs my checks and ultimately controls my future there) is no longer comfortable.
Any lawyers out there? Do I have a lawsuit?
Sera, good comment. Sounds like the sort of thing that would play sooo well for the media.
I don't have time to read all 400 comments, but...
I've been an atheist by choice since I was eight years old. I was a bright, precocious, stubborn little snot. It irritated the hell out of my family, which made it more interesting, but I've never had doubts since then about the matter.
Atrios, I agree and disagree with your post. Atheists get kicked around. But I don't think it's a big deal. I've learned to keep my opinion to myself and not try to be antagonistic with people that want to believe in whatever fairy tale has taken their fancy. You don't try to rush children into not believing in Santa, and so it's not cool to do the same thing with God issues. Whatever floats people's boats, I'm happy with.
I feel relaxed about any anti-atheist comments because I know that this is just a phase we're going through. In a few decades, people will look back and say, Jeez, they were really insane with this religious stuff back in the late 20th, early 21st century.
Religious extremism is a horrible thing, but I see it as a last gasp of a point of view that will become obsolete very soon. There are plenty of religions that don't require this kind of hatred and that can coexist with other religions. Religious hatred, like the kind practiced by the religious right, will eventually be recognized for what it is and no longer be tolerated.
In the meantime, it's easy to keep my opinion to myself when it makes others uncomfortable. I can find something about almost any religion that I can respect and find common cause with.
What Kristoff et.al. refuse to consider is that those of us who "attack" right-wing Christians do so not for their religious beliefs but for their hypocrisy--their pretending to religious belief.
How can you read the Sermon on the Mount and then utter the phrase "right-wing Christian" without collasping on the floor in paroxysms of involuntary laughter?
If Jesus Christ returns to Earth he will grab Jerry Falwell and shove him head-first up Pat Robertson's ass.
Joe, IANAL, but strikes me there could be a harassment case. It'd be more convincing (alas) if said boss tried to sack you on this basis.
Joe,
Yes, I'm no lawyer, but that should be covered under anti-discrimination statutes.
After four years in constant fear of bodily harm at the hands of the stormtroopers of the self-styled "peace movment"... and when "liberals" continue to sneer at me with "it didn't happen, and besides you deserved it"... I find it difficult to get worked up about the ReligiousRight (TM) you tell me is hiding under the bed. For some odd reason, people who send tanks against unfashionable religious groups worry me more.
instead of believing in 'miracles' have a look into complexity theory and emergent complexity from simple systems. Also don't assume there was a 'before' before the Big Bang (or whatever marks the 'beginning' of existence). Your perception of time as a sequential series of events is just the interpretation that your brain as it is wired up presents to your mind. The universe isn't strictly 3-dimensional and Newton's laws of motion (which would seem to be axiomatic and intuitive) have been superseded by Einstein's theories of relativity.
Magnum, have you read any of Brian Swimme's writings or seen his videos? He is a cosmological mathematician (close enough) who has studied the beginnings of the Universe -- he is also a practicing Catholic. Believe me, the two are not at odds with Brian. He presents 'awe' as a natural part of the human condition and one that we've stuffed (my words) into the recesses of our brains. He has done a lot of work with Thomas Berry, a Catholic priest, also a scientist. There's loads of work being done in this area -- much of it by women religious, as we speak. Usual situation, men doing the academic research, women doing the on-the-ground living it stuff.
I recommend reading Brian Swimme if you have time or haven't already done so.
Did I miss out on some excitement last night!
Since this post seems primarily directed at the unmentionables, Melanie and me, and the criticisms we made that were picked up by Drum on Wednesday, I'd just say that Kynn stated what I would have said and did it more eloquently than I could have.
I don't know why you're directing all that anger at us, Atrios, but I object to being called "liberalish" and your claim that Land, Mohler, et al. are "just slightly rightward" of me. I don't know who has stood up to the Christian Right on, for example, same-sex marriage more forthrightly than I and in forums beyond the blogosphere.
I really have tried to get along if for no other reason than self-interest. This morning's response is here.
Joe Briefcase, maybe before you break out the law suit you should go talk to him about the situation.
"I'm even more dismayed by the comments to his post that consist of bashing on ALL Christians including the Christian Left. We really do exist, guys, and we're on YOUR side.
--Kynn"
I agree with Kynn 100%. Another good group I see hasn't been mentioned is The Interfaith Alliance.
I can't comprehend how people that are constantly insulted for their lack of belief/faith/association with organized religion can then turn around and be insulting, hostile and condescending to people of faith.
I don't see how any of that wins hearts and minds either way. Have some respect, everyone.
Streaker, read 'The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Crusades' - bright orange cover, can't remember the author
TheaLogie, I don't think I could take it right now -- feel like I'm watching it as we go!
The last I read was Karen Armstrong's "Gospel According to Woman" -- that'll last me for a few more years. (I'd also studied lots in seminary a few years back, just never had read Armstrong's book.)
[i]Virginia Blaisdell It's time for us to put out a human-centered definition of morality that engages the questions that religious people want answers to.[/i]
We have.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/
...Aspirations.htm
http://www.americanhumanist.org/...t.org/humanism/
Joe Briefcase - I don't know, but in the meantime while you're trying to find out, you should consider writing a dated, signed memorandum for your files describing as accurately as possible, with times and dates, what happened and -- being as precise as possible -- what was said, and to whom. Also, it would be helpful to describe, specifically, how this affected your ability to conduct your work. If you have any allies who independently witnessed some of this behavior, ask them if they would write a short, signed memorandum to you with the same information. Your lawyer may find these useful in evaluating whether or not you have a case, depending on state labor case law, your employer, your employment status, and other factors.
By the way Atrios: I wonder if this rant might be your "Kos mercenary" moment, but what the hell; I'll say it anyway: "Amen, brother!!"
Held off on commenting last night, and coming in this morning, I'm glad I did.
So many have said it so much better than I. But, at 438+ comments, I can't even read 'em all, much less name names of the deserving.
But, to put it simply: be careful what you ask for. The Civil Rights movement alone sprang entirely from the churches. The Abolitionist movement of the 19th century would have gotten nowhere without the churches.
Indeed, universal education got a boost from the churches. It is a little known fact that "Sunday school" started as just that: school on Sunday. Not to indoctrinate young minds in religious faith, but to teach the children working in factories how to read and write. Sunday was the one day they didn't have to work, and it was a pastor who got the idea that they, too, deserved to know at least that much.
Separate church from political life? Takes a bit more surgical approach. And don't confuse the United Church of Christ, or the Episcopal Church, or the Presbyterians, et al., with the Southern Baptists, or the "non-denominaational" churches, etc.
And, lastly, as for hypocrisy, sexism, violence, brutality, etc., and "religion." Unless you can show me that none of those things would have happened without religion, I'm gonna have to say that just goes along with being human. Religion is a human activity, as much as poetry writing or making love or blogging. Seems to me all the major wars of the 20th century got along just fine without religion. In fact, I heard an interesting report the other day about the scientific basis of the Holocaust (anyone remember eugenics? Hitler's "Master Race"?) If we're gonna lay blame, let's lay it all around, and come back to where it starts:
the human heart.
About which even the God of Abraham told Jeremiah: "The human heart is devious; who can fathom it?"
I did a cartoon right after that pathetic demonstration on the capital steps...
One Nation Under God
I busted on Daschle in that one, because I expect democrats to actually believe in the "Liberty And Justice For All" part. It was a squalid demonstration of political spinelessness. Can't they, when push comes to shove, be proud of this nation's founding ideals, and stand up for them? If they can't, the republicans are going to erase every fine and noble thing this country ever stood for.
I don't think religion needs to be entirely separate from political life - but once it enters the political sphere it's subject to the same criticism as anything else.
Dumbo:
What impresses me about your post is the lower case "a" in "atheist", which speaks volumes.
I would quibble that this "phase" has lasted several thousand years so far, but what the hey. To be an atheist and a Cockeyed Optimist is probably a good thing.
I'm agnostic as all shit, myself.
In a country where the middle class is being reduced to the working class; where the social safety net is being destroyed as fast as big business can destroy it; where the skilled manufacturing jobs are disappearing; where farming has been taken over by agribusiness; where you are expected to work 8-6 Monday to Saturday every week of the year with 2 weeks holiday for a wage which has barely increased in real termsv for the last ten years (they call it "productivity"); where your environment is probably an endless string of ugly gas stations and take-outs; where there is no community worth the name; where there is no healthcare for a large proportion of the population; where the big corporations are down-sizing their pension commitments, and old age is looking grimmer by the day..........
Ordinary Americans are asking WHAT IS THE POINT???
They have turned to religion. Can you blame some people, not previously violent, channeling they feelings towards a huge holocaust, where, they are told, they will be transported to heaven and the rest of us will burn in Hell? Why not? Who cares?
Thus the triumph of unrestrained capitalism and globalization and man as consuming machine. Well done. Own goal, as they say in England!
By the way, what IS the point?
Robert Jeffers:"But, to put it simply: be careful what you ask for. The Civil Rights movement alone sprang entirely from the churches. The Abolitionist movement of the 19th century would have gotten nowhere without the churches."
While this is true, I doubt that the civil rights movement was populated only by the faithful....although their presence no doubt added a 'moral force' that America had to reckon with.
But I have heard people that were active in the Civil Rights movement- who you think would be natural allies of the gay rights movement- be blase' or outright hostile to things like gay marriage. I find that stance, er, interesting.
Amen, brother!
But, agnostic or not, I can say with absolute certainty;
Religion is-
a) The worst idea Humankind has ever had, in all it's thousands of years of bad ideas (The existence of "God" notwithstanding).
b) The thing that will kill us all.
I don't think religion needs to be entirely separate from political life - but once it enters the political sphere it's subject to the same criticism as anything else.
I question this. I'm not sure asking who represents god belongs in political discourse at all.
Allan,
I'm not going to register at your site, but I've never been hostile to Melanie. I'm hostile to easterbrook because he's a proven liar who talks about religion not to celebrate his faith but rather to bash non-believers.
Actually, I have talked to my employer about the situation. I even told him this appeared to me, as a lay person, to be descrimination in the workplace.
He laughed! And said "No it isn't. I'm just concerned about you. I care, and it makes me sad to see someone who's soul is lost."
He answered my complaint about religious propagandizing and his dismissal of me by propagandizing more and telling me I'm going to Hell. It actually broke the tension because it was so damn ridiculous I laughed too.
On a side note, he grabbed a female employees breasts from behind when walking out of a meeting once, and she quit a week later. Another female employee left and told me among the reasons was the fact he emails porn around the office. I warned him he should get a lawyer, and he laughed that one off too. Christians and sexual harrassers (Republicans) apparently don't believe they can be sued.
Honestly, I don't really care. Like most people who are discriminated against or sexually harrassed in the workplace, I have just set my sights on other things and I ignore this behavior. My career there is over and I'm doing other things. I'm lucky I have other things to go on to. Some do not, and they take shit for years.
I'm not really interested in a lawsuit. Neither were the half dozen or so women who left and had legitimate sexual harrassment lawsuits they didn't pursue.
It's just the principle. Atrios is right, ask these people and they would claim Christians have it tough in this country, being assualted on all sides by the liberal menace.
But as a non-believer, I am less than a citizen, less than an employee. Now our president makes it official by saying these things.
Michael Parenti said in a lecture I once attended that Atheists and Agnostics are the most discriminated against class of humans on the planet. Over the years I've come to think it's true. And like Atrios, I don't give a fuck. I would just like the X-tians to just quit acting like nobody ever had it so rough as rich Republican Christians do today.
PS. A barber once told me I was going to Hell because I meditate and practice Buddhism. In the end, she was almost in tears begging me not to get her fired (although I never even came close to suggesting such a thing - it was purely her own awareness she had crossed a line, not anything I said). In the end, I was apologizing and consoling her, assuring her I wouldn't tell anybody she said that. I shrugged off the whole thing, but I bet she is telling people how close she came to losing her job because she tried to "help" a non-believer.
I just read Kristof's article -- don't know why I missed it last night, maybe it hadn't been posted yet? Anyway, there was this:
It's always easy to point out the intolerance of others. What's harder is to practice inclusiveness oneself. And bigotry toward people based on their faith is just as repugnant as bigotry toward people based on their sexuality.
What I'd like to say to him is I think they, the people he's preaching to us about, started this. Falwell and Robertson have been collecting millions of dollars and finally have succeeded in getting their 'end-times' guy in the WH, and look what's happened!
That said, there was on one of the cable channels last night a report of a case in Alabama where an Atheist group has petitioned to have a gathering at the state capitol (I think that's where -- anyway, a state building). Their gathering is on the same exact date as a religious groups' gathering. The religious group has petitioned and received permission to hold their gathering inside the building in case of rain. The Atheist group made the same petition and was denied the right to use a room inside the building in case of rain. They interviewed a man who was the sole voice in this decision. There is no other choice at this point. He does not like the beliefs of the Atheist group, and there is no further discussion of the matter. Case closed.
I guess I'd just like to say when Kristof sees 'this side', the liberal side, with that amount of power, and using it to deny certain groups of taxpayers the same rights as other taxpayers, then I'll buy his argument.
I admit to being a liberal Christian (a little lapsed).
But where are your effing soup kitchens and housing programs, you limousine liberals?
Melanie
I have two sisters-in-law who are religious and would like to see me be the same. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools but got fed up with Catholicism as a teenager.
Instead, I've done a lot of volunteer work, at soup kitchens and working with AIDS pateients etc.
My sisters-in-law have never lifted a finger to help anyone.
Eff you
Yes, there are no secular soup kitchens or housing programs.
(and where did I accuse the religious - left, right, or center of not being charitable?)
...well, once again I am late to the party. But great post.
I for one, am fucking sick of atheists being treated like pariahs or freaks or third-rate citizens.
And it annoys me to no end that no self-proclaimed atheist could get elected to public office.
I might also add that Hinduism, the great polytheistic heathen religion, also does not get much respect in the US. Just most people don't know much about Hinduism.
Just my two cents.
not a single gol-durned troll in the whole thread.
I don't believe because I believe that the Bible is historically accurate or even because I believe in the miracles recounted in it. The Bible is a hodge podge of stuff and the texts are notoriously non-standardized. I certainly don't believe in 95% of the cinematic kitch that constitutes "christianity".
"Moses" the movie only makes me believe that Hollywood can do nothing without sex and violence, though no one in the bible was more blood thirsty than Moses so they got a head start in the script dept.
I believe because of my own experience, and not in a nine-story-Jesus or any other personal- hallucination nonsense.
Jesus' teachings make sense to me as a way of living my life, especially when you take out the stuff obviously put in his mouth by the developing clerical establishment. I don't believe that he ever said he was the only way to salvation, I don't belive in the Nativity narrative (though the escape in Egypt was turned into a great cantata by John Harbison a wer years back) or the Virgin Birth or most of the other clap trap of "christianity".
I've come to see that much of what Jesus said was also said by, for example, the Buddha and Hillel. Great minds think alike.
I truly believe that religion (i.e. the ability to believe in the supernatural), like many other characterisitcs (including political affiliation, liberalism vs. conservatism, to a large degree) are inborn. That is why trying to reason with religious about their beliefs fails to work--there is a basic, underlying inablity to comprehend the view of the other.
I have been an atheist from birth. I went to church regularly as a kid (although, thank God, not one of those fundie churches that make you handle snakes or proclaim your beliefs in public). I tried to believe, to fit in, but could never make it work.
I have many friends who believe, and who are good people, and we agree to disagree. And I've worked with religious organizations in the past, because many of them do believe in Christ's teachings and do a lot of good, caring for the poor and sick.
One of the few things Bush ever got right was calling Christ a philosopher, for he was one (although I doubt that Bush has ever read his teachings, or follows any of them!) Christ preached peace and love and doing unto others. He preached that a rich man could never enter heaven. He rejected the blood and vengeance of the Old Testament, replacing the previous commandments with one: "Love they neighbor." He was a rebel and a communarian. That is why Woody Guthrie wrote his song.
Unfortunately, his followers deified him and, particularly Paul, perverted his teachings. They built the church, with its hierarchies and riches, and ignored the truths. Elaine Pagels writes about this at length in "The Gnostic Gospels" and her other books.
A true Christian, a follower of Christ, would not behave as any of the Bushes do. They would march against war, as many did last year. They would oppose massive tax cuts for the rich, as many did.
Thank you for that.
One thing I've noticed: on my weblog, I do a fair amount of strongly-worded criticism of creationists and religious extremists, and what really irritates me is that if I point out that nutjobs like Bill Dembski or Jonathon Wells or Philip Johnson are trying to corrupt science with their sectarian religious weirdnesses, I get a bunch of complaints about how I hate Christians.
It's as if you can hold any insane idea you want, and as long as you prefix it with the word "Christian", you get a free pass from the reasonable majority. It's a magic umbrella word that protects idiocy in this country.
But where are your effing soup kitchens and housing programs, you limousine liberals?
Melanie
Pretty huge difference between the work of charity and attempting to regulate what people do with their bodies. If members of a chruch want to organize to promote humanistic agendas, the relief of suffering, that's cool. It's not cool to make religious doctrine -- "a fetus is a suffering individual" -- secular law.
Thanks Streaker, I've added Swimme's name to a list I keep of authors etc to watch out for.
In fact, I heard an interesting report the other day about the scientific basis of the Holocaust (anyone remember eugenics? Hitler's "Master Race"?)
"Hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (Mein Kampf - Houghton Mifflin 1971, translation by Ralph Manheim)
You're right about the human heart thing. The author Mary Renault once said that "Politics like sex is only a by-product of what the essential person is. If you are mean and selfish and cruel it will come out in your sex life and it will come out in your politics when what really matters is that you are the sort of person who won't behave like that." To which I would only add that religion is also a by-product of what the essential person is.
So we have to admit, in the end, that some Americans just won't get it. They'll never admit that America is for all of us, that its promise of liberty and justice for all, extends to every one of us, because that means living in a culture that treats their religious beliefs equally with those of people they despise, people they regard as evil. To live in a land that values pluralism, is to live in a land where they cannot dictate how everyone else lives, where they are forced to endure the sight of happy contented heathens. They will never accept that. So there will always be a struggle to defend our democracy, from those who would make a theocracy out of it. But no, the enemy isn't religion. It's hate. It's arrogance. It's dogma.
It isn't that we need to take religion out of public life, but defend American pluralism more. You can't have democracy without freedom of conscience. If atheists can't get elected to public office because of their beliefs, if they can't be open about their beliefs without suffering discrimination, then we have a problem. We are not being faithful to the American Dream.
if I point out that nutjobs like Bill Dembski or Jonathon Wells or Philip Johnson are trying to corrupt science with their sectarian religious weirdnesses, I get a bunch of complaints about how I hate Christians.
Gay people get that all the time. Since we demand legal tolerance, we are told it's equally intolerant...to oppose the intolerant. I always picture Peewee Herman screaming, "I know you are, but what am I?"
It ought to be self-evident that "tolerance" is not something you extend to the "intolerant." Such an argument is purely stupid since it renders the very meaning of "tolerance" its opposite.
I don't think religion needs to be entirely separate from political life - but once it enters the political sphere it's subject to the same criticism as anything else.
Absolutely. On that, we agree 100%.
While this is true, [my comment about the civil rights movement] I doubt that the civil rights movement was populated only by the faithful....although their presence no doubt added a 'moral force' that America had to reckon with.
No, it wasn't populated only by the faithful. But it wasn't "moral force" alone that carried the day. It was nonviolence; a bone-deep determination not to fight back against police, firehoses, and dogs.
Americans who were alive then remember the news footage of savage attacks on peaceful marchers. They remember Selma. They were moved by the deep conviction of the people, not the moral (in, say, a Kantian, i.e, not necessarily religious ethics, sense) of the cause.
But I have heard people that were active in the Civil Rights movement- who you think would be natural allies of the gay rights movement- be blase' or outright hostile to things like gay marriage. I find that stance, er, interesting.
I grew up in East Texas, in a "dry county," i.e., NO liquor sales. Dominated by Baptists. The standing joke was, they sobered up long enough to vote the country "dry" whenever the issue got on the ballot.
Hypocrisy among Christians? Christians who are actually people? I am shocked, shocked! to hear such things.....
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...."
The corollary to that one is: just because he threw a stone, doesn't mean you have the moral right to. Look it up under: Marchers, Civil Rights.
As I have said many times before, religion is nothing more than a refusal to face the fact of death.
When I woke up this morning the first thing I happened to read was Kristof. UGH!
Thanks for bitch-slapping him for us, Atrios.
"Hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (Mein Kampf - Houghton Mifflin 1971, translation by Ralph Manheim)
Extermination was part of the Holocaust.
The other part was eugenics: experimenting on human subjects to determine who to create the "Master Race."
Our motives as seldom so simple or pure as to stem from only one set of misguided beliefs.
I agree with an earlier poster that we need to get ostensibly political, now more than ever.
To my fellow atheists that want to get more involved:
Have you tried http://atheists.meetup.com
?
It's a good way to get to know others in your community.
Note that you can find groups for many other interests, such as agnostics, evolution, science, etc. Just go to www.meetup.com - I don't work for them, but I've met a lot of fellow atheists through them.
I think the more we make our presence known and the fact that we are not all religion-hating satan worshippers, the more difficult it will be for others to make statements like Shrub Sr.
Thank Goodness somebody said that!
I'm a second generation Atheist it's a relief to have somebody hit Kristof back immediately.
As a matter of fact I hug a dyed in the wool Evangelical on a semi-regular basis. My best platonic friend is a full bore Evangelical, and she's a bigger liberal than me. The vast majority of her friends are gay, and she has absolutely no time for racism since the love of her life was a black jazz musician. She's nearly to the left Atrios and Bartcop.
She's that rare bird, a _practicing_ Christian who practices her life rigorously according to the original precepts of Christianity much like Jimmy Carter. Frankly, I have the greatest respect and love for her as a result of her actions. I'll embrace other Evangelical Christian's when they embrace the beliefs they profess.
This is an email I sent to Allen Brill of therightchristians.org on Wednesday regarding this issue:
It was mostly fundamentalist bashing, fairly naive stuff. Then they had Chris Allbritton of Back to Iraq 3.0 and that was the end of that topic.
Seriously, Allen, bashing secular leftists for bashing Christians who are on the left is fairly counterproductive. There's a lot of hostility against religion in the left because religious leftists have not only not made their case with the general public, but with the secular left. The only person you really see in the media is Barry Lynn, and he doesn't talk about his religious beliefs. The interview with Jimmy Carter that was published earlier this month on the American Prospect website got a lot of attention in some left circles because Carter talked a lot about the positives of his Christian faith, which definitely set him apart from right-wing religionists.
I lived in Utah for seven years, ending in 2001. I used to say that in Utah there were many religious beliefs but only one Church. I am fairly hostile to institutional religion based on that experience, since I've seen not only how one religion can control pretty much everything that goes on in the state to the exclusion of everyone else, but how that one religion can label those not in the fold as not right with God. It's hard for me not to side with the secular leftists when it comes down to religion, because I've seen with my own eyes how polarizing it can be when one religion attempts to force its view of the world on everyone else. And to secular leftists, reading the news, seeing how the Bush administration is operating on religious beliefs to keep their base in line, it can look pretty darn scary. I tend to be a bit more sanguine. Sometimes the sheep do rise up when the dominant religion gets out of line, but it does get rather tiresome to have to depend on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to force reality on Utah government.
Which brings us back to what I think religious leftists ought to be doing, and that is going out and saying, "This is how we are different from the popular religious right," and then state those differences in a *positive* fashion. Right now, particularly with Gibson's Passion and the Left Behind books, Christianity in America is looking pretty darn monolithic in the press, and the monolith is right wing. (Nobody interviewed my parents after they saw the Passion, which they positively hated, and they went in inclined to like it, for example.) It doesn't help that there are certain members of the current administration who not only have swallowed that stuff whole, but who are in a position to influence policy because of their religious beliefs. And they can state, "Oh, we're for the babies" and what can the religious left do?
There are missed opportunities, such as when Michael Newdow was arguing his case against "under God" at the Supreme Court. One of the amicus briefs was from 24 rel
Of course you have to tolerate the intolerant ins some cases - its called politics, its called compromise.
Case in point, an activist friend who works with the families of Muslim men who have been 'disappeared' after 9/11. He privately compares his bringing together of those wives and children to the the relief a gay kid from a small town feels when he first meets a few dozen other openly gay people.
But he would never make that comparison to their face, because many of the families are deeply conservative and homophobic. He doesn't think any less of them, he just recognizes the reality and focuses on the the issue at hand.
Groups of nuns and priest have been very active and visible up here in the anti-war movement, as well as in things like refugee rights, etc. It's always been like that.
I remember, during the papal visit last year, an anti-poverty coalition going around and stencilling "Fuck the Pope" (or something similar) all over Toronto. Nice job, I thought, really narrow that tent. Weed out the ideologically impure. That's how reall change happens, right?
Having said that, Canada is not the US - questions of religion (like sex) are a lot less loaded here. The benefit of being a small, unimportant country.
(more...)
One of the amicus briefs was from 24 religious groups / persons who made arguments with Newdow for striking down "under God". This would have been a great moment to have put forward some of those arguments. Or that circus over in Alabama with Roy Moore's 10 commandments monument. Surely there was some reverend somewhere who could have stood up and pointed out the irony of having a monument carved with "Thou shalt have no idols" being idolized by people who believed they had to do this to bring God back into government? A well-stated argument, backed up by someone with Reverend in front of his / her name, made frequently, could have moderated some of the nonsense that I read during that situation.
But I'm not the person to make those arguments. I have too many issues with Christianity, in particular with its historical and ongoing treatiment of women in doctrine, liturgy and daily life that I have to get out for the sake of my own sanity. This is very difficult for me because I've invested the last 30+ years of my life in trying to be a good believer in and follower of Jesus, only to have my heart ripped open. As a woman, I've tried to reconcile Jesus with the organization that came after him, and I can't do it anymore (if I ever could). So I'm leaving to pursue some other spiritual path that doesn't leave me weeping with despair whenever I think about it. Someone else will have to make the arguments to the secular left.
Anybody who thinks EC's can be reasoned with should be required to live in a small southern town for a few years as anybody who isn't a white male or under the control of one.
I don't think this blog was about Kristof. It's in response to Drum here and Patrick Nielsen Hayden here, both of which discussed criticisms voiced by Melanie Mattson and myself. Kristof is talking about conservative Evangelicals, not progressive Christians. He doesn't mention Air America.
Atrios can straighten this out if I'm wrong.
"Religious experience is real, just as UFOs are. Maybe we can't explain either exactly, but there's no denying that a lot of people across time and cultures have had incredibly similar experiences."
Yes, and this cuts against religion. Since there are many people of all religions who have had mystical experiences of the same sort, there is no reason to believe any of them. After all, the Muslim who's been 'touched by god' and the Christian who's had the exact same experience cannot both possibly be right about which religion is true.
But where are your effing soup kitchens and housing programs, you limousine liberals?
you must be talking about the soup kitchens where you're dying for a meal and you have to sit through a one hour sermon of religion being stuffed down your throat before you can touch food.
you must be talking about the foreign charity programs that are thiny disguised propaganda tools for christian fundamentalists to tell all the rib rackers and aids junkies that the reason their poor and can't afford to buy aids drugs... is because they haven't given their lives to jesus, and oh yeah, being white and living in america would help too (like us), but we'll just do what we can do for you now.
So, if, according to the Bushies, atheists aren't citizens, then do they have to pay taxes?
Man will not be free until the last priest is strangled with the entrails of the last politician.
Good rant. I agree. I'm an athiest myself. If Christians think they are "persecuted" for their beliefs, they should try being an athiest. I can't wait for the first "outed" athiest to run for office up here in Canada. He's stand a better chance than in the US.
Personally, I think religious zealots are the biggest problem in the world, and we'll never have peace as long as people subscribe to the foolish beliefs they have in the Mythical Sky Buddy. The rabid Christian fundies in the US are as bad as the Islamic fundies in the middle east. From my perspective they're all nutters.
kristoff's the worst. sanctimonious, holier than thou, acts like his sh*t don't stink but all the rest or ours is polluting his perfection. smug and mendacious, go fellate your own evangelical bigot, you self loathing pseudo liberal prig.
couldn't read the whole thread, but can someone explain why fat tony scalia can take communion even though his death penalty blood lust is palpable but kerry doesn't get to take it cuz he's pro-choice? wazzupwidat?
wastelandusa, yes those storefront denegration and fleecing centers do exist and are getting tax money these days. I don't think that's what she meant though.
There are plenty of people who don't try to shame the poor or make them join their sect who do provide them with some of what they need. There isn't any reason to believe that all of them have hidden motives. Some of them are just decent and kind. Lots of them don't look down on the people they help, lots of them. Go out and volunteer and you might run into them.
Of course if you find the hypocrits you can out them too. Hypocrits should always be exposed.
Come on folks, make that meter go up to 500, give an opinion now.
How come the numbers go down sometimes? Can't figure that thing out at all.
Streaker:
last night a report of a case in Alabama where an Atheist group has petitioned to have a gathering at the state capitol (I think that's where -- anyway, a state building). Their gathering is on the same exact date as a religious groups' gathering. The religious group has petitioned and received permission to hold their gathering inside the building in case of rain. The Atheist group made the same petition and was denied the right to use a room inside the building in case of rain. They interviewed a man who was the sole voice in this decision. There is no other choice at this point. He does not like the beliefs of the Atheist group, and there is no further discussion of the matter. Case closed.
Damb, dude. That's pretty harsh. Thanks for the info, even if I might have expected it.
Interesting to speculate on what 'atheists' might carve on a rock:
Maxwell's equations? (in fully relativistic form and in Lorentz gauge). The chain rule? The Pythagorean theorem? The Einstein field equations? The Dirac equation? The Dyson equation?
case in point of the religious right..recently helped with a red ribbon appeal for AIDS, Salvation Army worker approached and commented that "AIDS was a disease that he felt was unnecessary"...hmmm response to him..." Can you tell me a disease that is?" he left in a huff...all talk about care and compassion...actions something else all together!!! Not suggesting that SA doesn't do some good things, just tired of the bullshit tied to some religious organizations!
I wish a faith-based atheist group (they believe that there is no god) would apply for some of that federal money. Same with Wiccans, Pegans, and worst of all the Metropolitan Community Church.
Can you see the screaming headlines? FEDRAL MONEY GOES TO THE DEVIL-WOSHIPING GAYS
still going strong at 11:00, what a great thread. Seems most of us believe strongly in our non-belief. BTW, athiest=a thiest.
Oh, Zoanon! Just got my better pair of glasses and saw what I've been typing all morning. I need a miracle badly.
Well, now I confess to being full-blown gonzo confused:
See, for example, human scum Nick Kristof, who wants me to hug an Evangelical. Screw you Kristof - damn straight I'm intolerant of people who are intolerant.
The irony of this position, in this context, is apparently being lost. Neither Atrios or Kristof notes that one of the central teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (let's keep it separate from "Christianity" for the moment), was: "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who persecute you."
One should note this was said in a time when "political enemies" meant people who could kill you without compunction or punishment. So it was a very radical statement in its day. And still, obviously, a hard one to swallow; or follow.
The issue is not religion - it's religion and politics.
Which is, as I read him, what Kristof says:
Of course, it's fair to criticize the Christian right's policies. Regular readers know I do so all the time, for religion is much too important an influence on policy to be a taboo.
You can argue the facts of that last sentence all you want. But Kristof distinguishes between "policies" and, say, Ted Turner's comment that "Christianity is for losers." Not far off Nietzsche, one should not, but not exactly the same profundity of thought, either.
As long as religions aren't too coercive of their members, I'm happy for people to do what they want.
Now this is just weird. (Sorry to pick on it, but you put it in print). From what I know of Mormonism, they can be pretty coercive of their members. Same with Catholicism, Buddhism, etc. What's it to me?
But, once religion gets involved in politics I have no need to be tolerant or nice about it. I can be tolerant of your religion without being tolerant of your politics. That's the issue.
Well, yes, that is the issue. Having grown up liberal and then progressive in East Texas, and then lived in Texas most of my life, that's always been the issue. I don't enjoy saying it, but: "Welcome to my world."
Not suggesting that SA [salvation army] doesn't do some good things, just tired of the bullshit tied to some religious organizations!
aurora borelis
Ah c'mon Aurora....the Salvation Army is a homophobic piece of shit organization. They have been in the news with their policy of not hiring gays. At Christmas time I delight in telling the bell-ringing beggers, "You don't get my change because I'm gay and your organization discriminates agains gays."
"So, if, according to the Bushies, atheists aren't citizens, then do they have to pay taxes?"
Well, unfortunately, non-citizens also have to pay taxes here if they earn money here.
Nice try though.
"faith-based atheist group (they believe that there is no god)"
Good one!
I feel compelled to mention to "wastelandusa" two things:
I'm an ordained Chrsitian minister (United Church of Christ), and
I have to leave now to join my wife and daughter at a food pantry, where we'll be distributing food.
It's fun by volunteers, mostly members of Christian churches. It's located on church grounds. It operates 3 days a week.
And we never proselytize to anyone. We just hand 'em food.
It's always a pain to give up a Saturday morning once a month to get over there. Until I get there.
I wasn't talking about the Salvation Army when I spoke up for people involved with religous charities, it is, indeed, a bigoted group.
There are lots of groups, especially small ones, that aren't.
Sarvodaya in some of its local groups, the Catholic Worker Movement (after the days of the sainted but very difficult D. Day, in particular), American Friends and Universalist Service Committees,...
They are out there
When on the campaign trail, while selling his "faith based" bs, shrub spoke well of "persons of no faith", as if they were welcome at the table. First time I noticed what a slick, lying pol he was.
They used to say that Dorothy Day was for anarchism as long as she got to be the Anarch. She is reported to have found it funny.
Atrios:
As an atheist can I now call you an idiot without you thinking it's religious persecution?
Your thinking seems muddled on this. That's no excuse for attacking the christian left. And that's what you did after about one line in defence of some jokes on Air America.
Bad show.
i was looking for a job after just moving to bloomington indiana and was going to apply to work as a sorting clerk in the local salvation army. as an atheist i thought it would be an interesting experiece working with a group of folks who mainly consisted of christians. well after perusing the application for employment, i refused to fill it out. THE SALVATION ARMY REQUIRES THAT YOU SIGN A PAPER STATING THAT YOU CAN BE DISMISSED ON GROUNDS OF "SEXUAL MORALITY."
you have to sign a sexual oath. fuck them.
"But I have heard people that were active in the Civil Rights movement- who you think would be natural allies of the gay rights movement- be blase' or outright hostile to things like gay marriage. I find that stance, er, interesting."
Hypocrisy among Christians? Christians who are actually people? I am shocked, shocked! to hear such things.....>
I wasn't addressing my curiosity to the stance of people active in the CR movement being against gay marriage in the framework of hypocrisy...I don't see it as hypocrisy so much as cherry picking beliefs that are favorable to 'your' cause, while ignoring others. I have no doubt that these people base their 'anti' stance on biblical writings/teachings and are as genuine in those beliefs as they were in the 'rightness' of civil rights.
Balisardo, conservative GOP Governor Bob Riley of Alabama is a surprinsly courageous man for questioning why more conservative Christians don't do more for the poorest Alabamians. But unfortunately, he took a bloodbath in the polls for it and his tax plan crashed and burned. He obviously has a moral center and I applaud him for that, but I don't see the rest of the GOP using him and his administration as a role model. The GOP just wants to win and expects their supporters to overlook the hypocrisy--and a surprising number of them do.
"Bad show.
DavidByron"
Not sure WHAT you're referring to there, pal.
I think the point of Atrios' post was that atheists don't get any RESPECT in this society. Where was Atrios dissing Christianity?
"The GOP just wants to win and expects their supporters to overlook the hypocrisy--and a surprising number of them do."
It seems to me trying to use hypocrisy against goopers is a worthless tool. A while back I saw the GOP chairman state, when caught in a flagrant display of hypocrisy, 'we're all hypocrites.'
It rolls off them like water off a duck.
Balisardo, conservative GOP Governor Bob Riley of Alabama is a surprinsly courageous man for questioning why more conservative Christians don't do more for the poorest Alabamians. But unfortunately, he took a bloodbath in the polls for it and his tax plan crashed and burned. He obviously has a moral center and I applaud him for that, but I don't see the rest of the GOP using him and his administration as a role model. The GOP just wants to win and expects their supporters to overlook the hypocrisy--and a surprising number of them do.
Several points:
1. I'm taken with Scott Peck's notion of the evil as POTL, People of The Lie -- and that the evil concentrate in churches as a form of protective coloration. I'm sure we can think of examples where lying and expressions of religiosity are intimately connected, and it is not connections.
2. Religion isn't going away any time soon. And in politics the point is to win, eh? Perfection is not necessary, just a slightly better world. No, I'm not into hugging fundamentalists ("Group hug!" Eeew!) but I think the religious have their wedge issues just like anyone else, and in a close election, every vote counts.
3. Even if it's a matter of "knowing your enemy" it's necessary to have some expertise in matters of religion to do politics in America today, if only to disentangle Republican rhetoric. I knew Dean would never make it when he said that the Book of Job was in the New Testament. It isn't, of course. A sign of inexcusably bad staff work.
4. Let's try to distinguish between hatred and anger, on the one hand, and outrage, on the other. Republicans always accuse us of hatred, when in fact the emotion is outrage -- anger because of outrageous, transgressive actions.
6. So let's keep the focus not on religion, but on the uses made of religion by the power-seeking.
Meaning, I'm in intellectual sympathy with debunking "sky gods." But I'm not certain that's a winning argument, in the sense that 30 seconds after you make it, you lose 30%-50% of your audience.
But sending soldiers to die because you think that God told you too -- framed that way, I think that would give pause to the majority of Americans (who are, let us never forget, very pragmatic, as Clinton's high polls during the impeachment saga showed).
In other words, tell the good story of liberal values.
Full disclosure, I'm an Episcopalian who has lapsed into agnosticism. (It's the problem of evil for me: How can a good God permit the Holocaust, for example).
Anyhow, kudos to Atrios. This is a topic we must learn to talk about.
a
And FTF.
Excellent article! I agree wholeheartedly.
Amen, Atrios. My father is a networked EC and it has alienated most of the family for the past 20 years. His beliefs do not stop at the pulpit but extend out to the "role" of women, gays and marriage. This prevents the rest of us from visiting him for more than 1/2 hour or else he starts trying to slide his apocalyptic vision thing into the conversation. His God is about fear, not love. Punishment, not forgiveness. Fortunately, in adulthood, we have resisted his ideas so long and so hard that he has finally stopped trying to convert us. One of my fears is that on his death bed he will make us "promise" to convert.
One of the skills I have aquired is that I can refute their arguments at length, point by point, so well I can do it in my sleep. You probably wouldn't be surprised at how often that comes in handy these days.
As a practicing American Buddhist, I'm forever grateful to my parents for not having infected me with the meme of theism when I was too young to be capable of recognizing it to be a fairy tale. Instead, I was encouraged to think, to investigate and above all, to consider the welfare of others. First and foremost, ALL beings wish only to be happy and to avoid suffering: holding enmity for others is like taking poison and imagining that it won't harm you. That said, I wish that I could feel some compassion for these assholes of the virulent right instead of loathing and disgust.
Oops, typo. "and it is not connections" -> "and it is no coincidence."
Lambert - I really like your distinction between anger or outrage and hatred. I think that is right to the point. I have a whole lot of anger and outrage toward the christian right. I don't hate them - tho' I do hate the message. A lot. In fact, I think this problem of religious extremism is one of the major problems of our time. We have extremists holding the rest of the world hostage to their world view. And what it has gotten us is war, bigotry and a kind of insanity, really, that permeates everything.
I think this issue should be talked about a lot and frequently. It is a fundamental problem we face. If people are serious about freedom of religion in this country then it has got to be made clear that the separation of church and state is a bright line divide and an absolute. Religion has no place in government. The people who disagree with that premise are dangerous - whether they are Catholic, evangelical protestant or Muslim.
Great post Atrios. Wish I hadn't shut down before you published it last night.
If these friggin arrogant Christians are persecuted, I sure as Hell want to know in which stadium I can see them fed to the lions.
'Nuff said.
The theists' world is a bubble. It's no wonder that they loath, and fear, those with pins.
"Atheists and Agnostics are the most discriminated against class of humans on the planet. Over the years I've come to think it's true."
Nope. Shortness. Bias against atheists and agnostics is almost universally acceptable but one's atheism or agnosticism isn't obvious. Bias against short people is universally acceptable--hardly ever recognized as bias, even among the more tolerant in a society--and a person's height is obvious. So we've surely had closet atheistic presidents but no shorties, for example.
yikes, this is the closest thing we non-believers get to a good ol' revival.
Weekly sermons at Atrios' tent o' Atheism!
I think we need to take a marketing approach, we have something the fundies don't, fun sex.
Fool:
The history of religious scholarship is too broad to go into here. Rest assured people far brighter than either of us have been deeply religious at various times throughout history. Also obvious should be that atheism and liberalism are fundamentally unrelated and in many instances opposed, viz. stalin's russia and mao's china, pol pot's cambodia, etc etc . More generally, the unproveable axioms underpinning secular government have no more abstract value than scriptural injunctions. Anti-religious bigots on the left discredit liberalism and alienate potential political allies with such talk.
Thersites:
Nothing inconsistent in the "good magic"/"bad magic" thing. These people do believe in "magic" (i.e. miracles). And they believe that the "bad magic" does work (why wouldn't it? "good magic" does ... except if you're not faithful enough and your kid dies anyway...). They are just of the opinion that the "bad magic" is the work of Satan and his minions. . . .
* * * * *
Re: "Fundamentalist" v. "evangelist"
As I stated, the fundamentalists are those that adhere strictly and unwaveringly to the five "fundamentals" (listed previously). Evangelism is a bit different. An evangelical believes that it is his duty to "spread the news" of the redemption through substitutionary atonement to the world (it's one of the things that the eschatological parts of the Holey Babble say must occur before the Second Coming, so in some sense this is obligatory to fulfilling Jesus's "kingdom on Earth"). In this sense, fundies and evangelicals overlap a fair bit, but they are not conjoint sets (some fundies are premillennialists, and believe that they're to step back -- and apart -- from this "fallen world", and as such are not enthusiastically evangelical [these are the "old" fundamentalists]; others like the Christian Reconstructionists are postmillennialists, and think that they must not only establish Gawd's Kingdom on Earth for a millennium, but also institute Gawd's Law, before Jaayyyzzzuuuss will deign to set foot on Earth again; these people tend to be evangelical as they need to actively bring about Gawd's Kingdom). Some of them also think that they need to bring about (or at least give a nudge to) the Tribulation ... and to the death of a third of the Jews in the newly reconstituted nation of Israel, as fortold in the book of Revelation. Nice friends you have there, eh, Israel? These nutzoes in the CRW of the Republican party that support you so whole-heartedly are just fattening you up like a lamb for the slaughter ... in their mind, at least. . . .
HTH.
Cheers,
-- Arne (a.a. #101)
"Such an enemy cannot be deterred, cannot be contained, cannot be appeased, or negotiated with," he [Cheney] said. "
Hmmm, sounds like the US.
For years I've thought that one of Huxley's characters in the novel Island said it best (he was speaking of the hypocricy of the religious self-righteous). "If you don't believe the the blood of your redeemer was shed for your slavation then I'll drown you in your own."
Thank You! Try being agnostic in Utah. Boy howdy, talk about persecution!
Excellent post. One point though: Are Christian fundamentalists actually Christians? This is a question seldom asked. But if you compare the text of the Christian Gospels, few of the right-wing beliefs are textually supported. There is little there against homosexuality, abortion and tax policy but plenty about ministering to the poor and propmoting peace among people, not to mention a clear imperative not to "pray on street corners like the hypocrites". So lets not beat up on Christians. A better tack, I think, is to challenge their claim to be Christians in the first place. Steal Jesus back, in other words. Even if you're not a true believer, the truth within that religious tradition is no less salient, and philosophically minded people should be comfortable confronting religious concepts.
Fool:
The history of religious scholarship is too broad to go into here. Rest assured people far brighter than either of us have been deeply religious at various times throughout history. Also obvious should be that atheism and liberalism are fundamentally unrelated and in many instances opposed, viz. stalin's russia and mao's china, pol pot's cambodia, etc etc . More generally, the unproveable axioms underpinning secular government have no more abstract value than scriptural injunctions. Anti-religious bigots on the left discredit liberalism and alienate potential political allies with such talk.
KornPone
Stalin and Pol Pot were liberals?
"Religion has no place in government. The people who disagree with that premise are dangerous "
Tena, I disagree with that premise, I'm not dangerous, and I'm not religious either. Political views deriving from faith or dogma have exactly as much abstract merit as irreducible principles (eg "a fetus is not a person") embraced by enlightened lefties such as yourself. Inside every smug leftie like you there's a little Pol Pot looking to jail (or just disenfanchise) subversive christians for permitting their faith to inform their politics.
I feel compelled to mention to "wastelandusa" two things:
Are you talking about we the unwashed here at Eschaton, Robert?
(juuusst kidding!)
Just me, or does ol boy seem abnormally fixated on lesbians?
..abnormally for a good christian, I mean.
I bet Osama is sitting in some dank dark cave pondering the extra milage he's gotten since 9/11. He not only made us look bad around the world (from the Iraq occupation), but most important - 9/11 has sucessfully turned the US against itself through religious fervor.
And I'm sure if there is anything he can do to help keep Dumbya in the WH, he will. America needs to get its head out of its ass over mixing politics and religon real soon.
Not that many give a rat's ass, but look at how Christian religion has treated gays for centuries. Hundreds of millions of gays for thousands of years have suffered. Suffering of epic proportions. More suffering than any other people in the history of the world.
Incognito, it is exactly my point that I associate "religion is the enemy of the state" with Stalin and Pol Pot, not liberal government. Anti-religious bigotry is just as vile as its fundamentalist mirror image.
I bet Osama is sitting in some dank dark cave pondering the extra milage he's gotten since 9/11. He not only made us look bad around the world (from the Iraq occupation), but most important - 9/11 has sucessfully turned the US against itself through religious fervor.
And I'm sure if there is anything he can do to help keep Dumbya in the WH, he will. America needs to get its head out of its ass over mixing politics and religon real soon.
Anyway, I used to care. Now it's like SWR said a few weeks ago, "We have ring-side seats as our country goes to hell." That's the way I look at it now.
KornPone - "Inside every every smug Leftie like you there's a little Pol Pot looking to jail subversive christians blah blah blah"
I find it interesting that you think anything that I said leads to jailing christians. It's that martyr thing ya'll have, isn't it? You love being victims, when in fact you victimize every one who doesnt' subscribe to your views.
I don't want to put fundies in jail - I don't want to have to pay to house and feed them. I also have no desire for a "killing field" for christians, nor did anything I say indicate even a whiff of that, though you decided to call me a "little Pol Pot." LOL!
Your comment was really silly.
I'm telling ya'll, the religious right has a strangle hold over the government. They're highly agitated and activated and they're not going to release us all by the balls until they take it all down. I think they're going to try to provoke God into Armageddon and we're going to have the exchange of nuclear weapons somewhere, probably an American city. They'll really seize control of everything, then. I never would have imagined they would use 911 as an excuse for everything they do now but just like the GOP, they have no morals.
Incognito, it is exactly my point that I associate "religion is the enemy of the state" with Stalin and Pol Pot, not liberal government. Anti-religious bigotry is just as vile as its fundamentalist mirror image.
newgirl: I am both an atheist and an alien. I pay taxes, and I don't grumble about it either.
Neither condition exempts you from taxation.
But it would be nice to be able to have representation along with my taxation (of course, the 'cure' here is within my power, if it ends up being enough of a problem).
Cheers,
-- Arne
They believe we're living in the 'Last Days' so they're compelled by their religious doctrine to take control of this country to await the 'coming of Christ.'
the religious right has a strangle hold over the government.
exactly All your base are belong to us in the religious sense.
I am both an atheist and an alien.
Greetings alien life-form. Welcome to the asylum.
Tena, read again. I am not a christian, or religious. But it drives me nuts when smug little bigots like you assail the right of christians to permit their political views into the public sphere-- the fact of their origin in scripture says nothing toward their rightness or wrongness. Somehow you imagine the greatest good would be best served if religious people just shut their yaps.
I disagree with that premise, I'm not dangerous, and I'm not religious either. Political views deriving from faith or dogma have exactly as much abstract merit as irreducible principles (eg "a fetus is not a person") embraced by enlightened lefties such as yourself. Inside every smug leftie like you there's a little Pol Pot looking to jail (or just disenfanchise) subversive christians for permitting their faith to inform their politics.
KornPone
Just a damn minute, Mr. KornPone, we're liberals, and that certainly does not embrace jailing 'subversive' christians. You are talking around what Tena wrote, IMO. I'll let her defend herself, but I know that I don't want a faith-based Supreme Court telling me who can be my president, or coming into my bedroom; I don't want my reproductive issues resolved by rich old men; I don't want anyone telling me that I'm not patriotic, or christian, or whatever, because I believe differently from him! That's a far cry from permitting [someone's] faith to inform their politics.
I believe Jimmy Carter is a most recent example of a president who did allow his faith to inform his politics, and policies, and continues to do so. Probably more than any president who has come after him. Did you support his efforts? I did.
I don't want to pay to house and feed a lot of people. The fact of their religion doesnt (and shouldn't) intrude on this sentiment, any more than the fact of their race. Unlike you, the dogma of atheists appeals to me less than the dogma of catholics. Your comments on this thread (and all threads for that matter) are beyond silly. They reveal you to be a smug, ignorant offensive dunce.
Somehow you imagine the greatest good would be best served if religious people just shut their yaps.
KornPone
As if that's ever going to happen. But they're damaging their religion by putting it into poltics of the "public sphere." It cheapens their faith. Politics is dirty. Like I wrote upthread. If anyone wants to understand what no separation of church and state looks like, just look at the miserable treatment of gays for centuries in this country. One of the very first executions was a Jamestown where a gay guy was executed for "sodomy."
Streaker, you may be a liberal. Tena, who in her own words thinks religious people are dangerous (with what corollary god only knows) is not a liberal, just a leftist ideologue.
Your comments on this thread (and all threads for that matter) are beyond silly. They reveal you to be a smug, ignorant offensive dunce.
KornPone
Now really, KornPone, that comment really doesn't seem like the 'Christian attitude' to me.
Incognito, without christians there would have been no civil rights movement, no emancipation. The governments that have most vocally espoused rigid separation of church and state somehow correlate directly with totalitarian dictatorships whose policies make the inquisition look like mister rogers neighborhood.
Awwww poor mistreated Christians. Boo Hoo...
Incognito, without christians there would have been no civil rights movement, no emancipation.
White churches here in the South actively worked against civil rights and emancipation. The whole, 'separation of the tribes' deal.
Easy there, Korny.
I think the issue is that there's a huge variety of religions (and non-religion) in the world.
We see an attitude amongst American Fundies that only THEIR beliefs are valid, and tax dollars collected from citizens practicing all that variety should be given to THEIR religion.
Many Buddhist orgs getting "Faith-based" grants? Hindus? Scientologists? Wiccans? Satanists?
How about we agree that in any situation where your and my money is going to get spent, we both shut the f*ck up about religion and just take care of business?
That's all I ask. Your religion is your business, my religion is my business. When we work on mutual business, the government, we both keep our mouths shut about it.
I go to church with several people who can't keep church and state seperate in their minds. It's a sort of wink wink, nudge nudge, sure the principle is in the Constitution but we all know that the U.S. really is a Christian nation sort of thing. Then they externalize this by thinking that the Constitution was written specifically for a Christian country (and that it only really works as a document administered by Christians), and we know where that leads. Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, Atrios.
By the way, those same white protestant churches are the activated and agitated we see now in the government. I don't see much of Jesse Jackson's civil-rights brand of religion in power.
I don't have a problem with Jesse Jackson's religion promoting better treatment of the poor in the "public sphere." I do have a problem with Jerry Falwell's religion in the "public sphere" blaming gays and atheists for 911.
Incognito - Unfortunately, that is the christian attitude that gets the most play now - the intolerant, hateful, hypocritical christians viewpoint that the christian right has been trying to force on us for years now. Like meddling constantly with what school textbooks can and can't say about science. Trying to get books banned from libraries. Christian fundies are pro-ignorance and anti-open mindedness.
If the fundies would just get in their churches, shut the doors and worship instead of trying to force their viewpoint on the rest of us, I would have no problem with them. But trying to inject christianity into our government is a violation of our constitution
Our constitution is very clear - there is a hard line that separates church and state. To repeat what I said earlier, that means that religion has no place in our government. End of story.
"Such an enemy cannot be deterred, cannot be contained, cannot be appeased, or negotiated with," he [Cheney] said. "
Hmmm, sounds like the US.
For years I've thought that one of Huxley's characters in the novel Island said it best (he was speaking of the hypocricy of the religious self-righteous). "If you don't believe the the blood of your redeemer was shed for your slavation then I'll drown you in your own."
Good rant. I agree. I'm an athiest myself. If Christians think they are "persecuted" for their beliefs, they should try being an athiest. I can't wait for the first "outed" athiest to run for office up here in Canada. He's stand a better chance than in the US.
Personally, I think religious zealots are the biggest problem in the world, and we'll never have peace as long as people subscribe to the foolish beliefs they have in the Mythical Sky Buddy. The rabid Christian fundies in the US are as bad as the Islamic fundies in the middle east. From my perspective they're all nutters.
"Such an enemy cannot be deterred, cannot be contained, cannot be appeased, or negotiated with," he [Cheney] said. "
Hmmm, sounds like the US.
For years I've thought that one of Huxley's characters in the novel Island said it best (he was speaking of the hypocricy of the religious self-righteous). "If you don't believe the the blood of your redeemer was shed for your slavation then I'll drown you in your own."
When this country was founded, Christiany wasn't new. That wasn't the "new ideals" that made up the framework of the Constituion. If so, why wasn't there another United States founded in the previous two thousand years? What were the new fresh ideas were those of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason that had nothing to do with Christianity.
KornPone - you bet it's dangerous. You bet. There is no fucking difference between the kind of theocracy that the Taliban established in Afghanistan and the kind of theocracy the christian right wants for America. I do not want to live in a theocracy nor do I think that our founders wanted this country to be one. That is the entire reason that they put the establishment clause in the constitution.
You have no, I mean no, valid, sustainable argument that can overcome our constitutional right to be free of the kind of dangerous nonsense that the christian right is spouting in this country. If it isn't stopped, it will bring our democracy to its knees.
Abiel, you're already written that, upthread.
Tena, I wouldnt expect you to know this, but the establishment clause says nothing about separating church from state. Sorry, but that isnt in the constitution.
Christians would and do answer that secularists have their own religion grounded in axioms more arbitrary than the 10 commandments ("/secular humanism"). To which Tena and her ilk respond "stay out of OUR government."
Thanks, Atrios. I'm right there with you on this.
The really hard thing is dealing with my mother-in-law, who's basically a nice person. Or at least, I thought she was until recently, when she announced that she's now a Fundamentalist Presbyterian. I'd never heard of this group, so I looked them up. Their main belief? Predestination. So, my MIL is going to heaven, and I am most definitely not (especially since she believes that I corrupted her only child). How's that for compassion?
"We see an attitude amongst American Fundies that only THEIR beliefs are valid, and tax dollars collected from citizens practicing all that variety should be given to THEIR religion."
Replace fundies with "lefties" and I'm 100% with ya. AMEN AND HALLELUJAH
I wouldnt expect you to know this, but the establishment clause says nothing about separating church from state. Sorry, but that isnt in the constitution.
Thomas Jefferson, the main architect of the Constitution, wrote that he intended there be a 'wall between church and state.'
KornPone - One last comment on this - you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that religious ideas or people are dangerous per se. I said that religious ideas in government is dangerous per se. Fortunately, this country was founded by men who felt exactly the same way that I do. There is nothing you can do to get around that fact.
You can call me smug and bigoted all you want. It does not change the fact that our constitution is clear that religion does not belong in government. That is all that needs to be said. We are governed by a constitution that expressly forbids the mingling of church, i.e. religion, and state, i.e. government. Now, argue yourself into a tailspin. Go ahead, claim I want to kill or jail christians. That is patently absurd and I could care less how you want to twist my words.
KornPone, do you believe it's fair that my tax dollars be spent to discriminate against me? That's what's happening right now because of the efforts of the religious right in the "public sphere."
Incognito, a better resource for anti-religious bigots to reference is James Madison, who wrote the amendments that ostensibly separate church and state. If you go read those amendments, you'll notice nothingn is said about "separataing church and state" "wall between church and state" et c etc. Madison appointed the 1st congressional pastor, and Thomas jefferson spoke in our nations founding document of a creator endowing us with inalienable rights.
Don't you just love it when you ask a valid question and the fundamentalist ignores you like the question doesn't exist, was never written and is invisible anyway?
Incognito, I'm not the one who thinks religious people are dangerous and should get out of politics, thats tena's job (and yours i guess.)
Zoinks! What a great post, thanks for taking a brave stand Atrios.
We need more discussion about the corruption of what is to me the most important idea this country was founded on. Why can't the majority of religiously inclined folks wrap their minds around the idea that the separation of church and state is essential for their own protection?
Once upon a time, not so terribly long ago really, atheists had an important role to play in the political and intellectual spheres of this country. I like to think I received a fairly decent education, but I'd never heard of people like Robert Ingersoll until recently.
I have great faith in the pendulum of history, but this is one area that I fear we may never see swing back into reasonable territory, let alone travel to the other side of the spectrum. I just hope there will be enough history left to judge this day and age in America...
Okay, I'm definitely late to the party.
I won't go into the philosophical/ethical debate. There's not much I could add at this point. A lot of people have made some wonderful points.
I guess I'm an agnostic with strong atheist leanings, and I've lived in the Bible Belt most of my life. You learn all the good comebacks here, that's for sure.
One that I have for the old "What if you're WRONG on Judgment Day?" question is this:
"I'll take my chances against Jerry Falwell anyday."
KornPone, for every example you list why there wasn't an intention by the Founding Fathers that there be no separation, I can list an example by the Founding Fathers that they intended there be one. So, how do we get past these tired old arguments. Religious zealotry is dangerous. These christians aren't the quiet dignified Christianty types. They're the smug self-righteous in your face condemning types. I don't want them deciding they know what's best for me and using the government to enfore their decisions.
tena, pop quiz:
who wrote: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man"??
hint: not josef stalin
KornPone, it's pointless to start listing quotes from the Founding Fathers. For every one you list, I can list a counter one. How is that productive. Let's move past that and imagine an America governed by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson brand of religion. Would you think that was kosher?
Incognito, smugness and zealotry are equal opportunity, and are not corrolaries of religion per se. Zealottry of all kinds is dangerous, including anti religious zealotry that thinks it's smarter than the other kind. Atrios post is the atheists equivalent of "I'm tolerant of black people, I just dont want them sitting next to me on the bus"
"We see an attitude amongst American Fundies that only THEIR beliefs are valid, and tax dollars collected from citizens practicing all that variety should be given to THEIR religion."
Replace fundies with "lefties" and I'm 100% with ya. AMEN AND HALLELUJAH
KornPone | Email | Homepage | 04.24.04 - 1:26 pm | #
What a perfectly facile answer. Way to duck the question:
Why is it such a hardship to ask you to keep your religion out of the public square?
Your religion is one of thousand. Show some Christian humility. The universe doesn't revolve around you personally.
This whole issue of one faith hijaacking gov't is why Christ admonished:
Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."
"Christians would and do answer that secularists have their own religion grounded in axioms more arbitrary than the 10 commandments"
Where do I get the 'secular humanist' bible and commandments? Where do they meet? Are they tax exempt? Do they have a 500 Club? Do they do bake sales, have hunger centers? How do their leaders get ordained?
Ras Nesta, once again, I am not a christian. I dont agree any more than you with the opinions of the "religious right" or the irreligious right. But saying their opinions dont belong in the public square is directly contrary to every principle this government was founded upon. If you dont like what they say, ignore them, vote against them, get others to vote against them.
KornPone is off his fricking rocker.
Nothing in the constitution?
Let's take a look at that our best friend, the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I know that reading comprehension is beyond some people out there, but this is pretty clear that government is going to stay out of dabbling in religion, and the best way to do that is to keep religion out of government. It means that people can believe what they want, spiritually, and the government won't care. At the same time, the government won't do anything that remotely implies that it is "in business" with religion, so to speak. It can't.
The religionists cannot have it both ways, although they of course always try. They cannot scream "You can't tell me what to believe!" then turn around and tell the government to tell ME what to believe. There's a reason the REST of the First Amendment says what it does, after mentioning religion, and why the REST of the First Amendment tells you why mixing government and religion will cause nothing but trouble. And the rest of the Amendment tells you what will be done to people who even try to enforce their beliefs on another.
This Amendment is a masterpiece of understatement and elegance.
I've often heard that canard, "where are the atheist soup kitchens?" It's annoying and misleading.
I'm an atheist. I've done volunteer work in soup kitchens; I give to charities; I'm currently active in my local humane society; I've even done volunteer labor for a Christian youth camp. If I were to be even more involved in social work to the extent of putting together a soup kitchen or women's shelter or hospice, I wouldn't label it as an atheist organization, just as I wouldn't label it "Green-eyed people's soup kitchen" because my eyes happen to be green. Atheism is a matter of non-belief. It's not something to be proselytized. If I help people, it's because they are people.
If anything, I'd argue the converse: why would a soup kitchen label itself as Christian or Baptist or Evangelical or whatever, and why would they attach a requirement for prayer to their services? That would seem to me to be assigning an ulterior motive to their help. And in fact, most of the charitable organizations I've been associated with do not make any such sectarian declarations -- they actually are secular organizations in spirit, even when Christians (and us atheists!) are working within them.
So, the reason you don't see soup kitchens proudly declaring themselves as "atheist" is because the atheists are working quietly within them, just as many good Christians are working humbly within them, not feeling any need to proselytize or otherwise trumpet matters of private, personal belief.
Incognito, I'm not the one who thinks religious people are dangerous and should get out of politics, thats tena's job (and yours i guess.)
KornPone
Democracy and zealous religious dogma are diametrically opposed. Their ideology leaves them no other choice but to slowly suffocate and crush democracy which they're doing now. And you believe they have every right to control the political direction of this country? If the separation of church is incrementally lowered, you will have an ascendant Theocracy. And just like Iran, once it's in place, you'll never get rid of it and woe be to any who don't adhere to it.
jdw,
Secular humanism has not one bible, but several. Start with Hume and work your way toward Marx.
A few thoughts:
1. Kornpone, you're an idiot. The first amendment does not contain the words 'separation of church and state', but those words are clearly a fair interpretation of its intent.
2. I have little tolerance for prejudice no matter what the target, and while Atrios' additions to his original comments help, they still don't entirely conteract the elements of prejudice in his post. I've railed before on this board about people who let their anger at Sharon and the Likud spill over into anti-Semitism. I'm equally upset about people who let their anger at intolerant fundamentalists spill over into a rant against Christians in general. When we attack a bad element within a particular group it's essential to make it clear that this is not an attack on the group in general. There are plenty of 'good' Christians, just as ther are plenty of 'good' Jews and 'good' Muslims. When we get carried away by anger, it's tempting to forget that, but when we do, we risk embodying the very attitudes we're trying to fight.
without christians there would have been no civil rights movement, no emancipation.
Without Christians there would have been no slavery, no apartheid. Racists used the bible to justify all of these. You know that.
The governments that have most vocally espoused rigid separation of church and state somehow correlate directly with totalitarian dictatorships whose policies make the inquisition look like mister rogers neighborhood.
Except that those governments weren't against religion per say, but against freedom of conscience. You can't have freedom of conscience, without freedom of religion. You cannot have democracy, without freedom of conscience. Totalitarians hate democracy, for that very reason.
So do theocrats, which are a kind of totalitarian. They hate freedom of religion. Under a theocracy, the only freedom you have is to worship the god of the mullahs. You don't have a right to a conscience, only a right to obey the mullahs.
Don't go waving the Stalinists at liberals bub. They're your soul brothers, not ours.
Korn, I know that I'm wishing for the impossible, that everyone would understand the vehement passions religion stir and voluntarily keep it off the public commons.
Humility, a key teaching of most religions, is quickly forgotten when the subject is religion itself.
jdw,
Secular humanism has not one bible, but several. Start with Hume and work your way toward Marx.
KornPone
What was wrong with the way our society worked the past 250 years? What? Now we need to become a Theocracy?
without christians there would have been no civil rights movement, no emancipation.
This was not a religious issue. Christians did their part, and since they are a large percentage of the population, their part was indispensable. But atheists were also marching for civil rights. Atheists are working right now for moral issues.
Do people understand why the phrase "that's mighty white of you" is offensive? It's appropriating a property that is common to all of humanity, regardless of skin color, and implicitly attaching it to one group, and regarding it as unusual when another group exhibits it.
Do they understand why the phrase "that's Christian of you" is similarly offensive?
I still think the root to all of this with the highly agitated Christians is their fear of gays becoming equal before the laws of this country. After the centuries of suffering they've inflicted against us, they can't be, likes, oops, sorry about that. No, they have to 'damn the torpedos, full steam ahead' running roughshod over the notion of equality for gays, let's do away with the form of government we have if that's what it takes. What other choice do they have?
Equality for gays = Their religion isn't true = There isn't a God = There is no heaven and they wont live forever.
What other choice do they have?
See why they're so agitated?
"Secular humanism has not one bible, but several. Start with Hume and work your way toward Marx."
You didn't address my points, but boy of boy the bible rack in front of the secular humanist pew is obviously gonna be very, very crowded.
How is defining the lack of a religion in fact a religion, any more then defining a lack of rock-like properties make a non-rock a rock?
that everyone would understand the vehement passions religion stir and voluntarily keep it off the public commons.
Ras Nesta, could you expand on that a little? I certainly support the wall between church and state, but I see nothing wrong in saying "As a Buddhist I respect all human life," or "Leviticus requires equal justice for rich and poor," or "The story of the good Samaritan illustrates Jesus' opposition to bigotry." To impose religion is certainly wrong, but I see no problem with referencing it.
Of course, they're other reasons why they're so agitated. Like abortion, for instance. If mostly black and hispanic women got abortions, they wouldn't give a rat's ass about the issue. They fear becoming minority white in this country. They're racist.
Beth, there's nothing wrong with the quotes you give, if they're given in private. It doesn't reduce their truthfulness or power.
It's when a majority picks one or the other and uses the apparatus of gov't to legislate their faith on body politic when the trouble begins.
That's what the Founding Fathers saw, and despite their deep and abiding faith, established the separation of church and state.
I love the term "rat's ass." It's just so succinctly sums all this up.
Crickets chirp...a tumbleweed tumbles by...hey where'd everyone go?
The opinions of people who have spent most of the past two-hundred years dead aside, you start mixing religon with government in this country you're lighting a fuse that will blow the whole thing sky high.
Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, Orthodox, Mormons, Jews.....
Start a nice big fight, start handing out money and naming winners and you'll reproduce Europe in the 15th-17th centuries. Treat them all equally and the best way to do that is to have government avoid doing anything to promote or suppress any of them unless they infringe on the rights of others and minor members of the group.
Can't wait until those Wiccans put in for some of that "faith-based" dough. Can't wait for the Satanists to demand their fair share. Should be interesting.
KornPone: You think you really know who's a leftist ideologue?
If this person can't say "Mankind will only be free when the last priest will have be hung by the guts of the last banker", then he's no radical leftist, just a moderate leftist.
Beside, though Stalin was bad, there are plenty of religious people in Russia nowadays, which just goes to show he was quite inefficient at the job.
KornPone, Beth's right, you're an idiot, an a gross manipulator of facts.
Did I mention you're a lying troll, too?
If you just look at the Bill of Rights: Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Go away, KornPone. Just because you wish something doesn't make it so; whether it's economics, human nature, or the Gods.
Personally, I'm expecting a goa'uld named Jesus with His Jafa Disciples to show up any day now- to get his ass royally kicked by an Asgar named Thor.
Can you prove any different? Then don't "god" at me.
Right On, Atrios.
Why does it feel so much like the U.S. government is currently being run by a mob of hopelessly rotten eight year olds? They lie, dominate discussion to exclude real debate, change the subject, or throw up obstacles whenever serious, rational attention to critical issues is required.
The 9-11 commission, the "war on terror," the environment, the economy, reproductive rights, etc. It's All Lies from these people. They are enemies of intellectual progress, enemies of honest policy. They are bound to WIN, no matter how corrupt it makes them. Only winning matters, losers have their faces boot-stomped into the dirt.
I am totally, totally sick of allowing the idiot logic and vapid superstition of the hard right to hold sway. Kerry can't even express moderate views without being boot-stomped.
It's this Lord of the Flies atmosphere that's most disturbing for the future of civilization.
Well, EPT, the Scientologists have been turned down attempting to get some of that sweet, sweet public lucre to fund their dangerous, medically-negligent drug treatment clinics. (They treat physical drug treatment with a cold-turkey, "tough-love" approach. Not a good idea with heroin. Very dangerous, and they've lost one.)
Start a nice big fight, start handing out money and naming winners and you'll reproduce Europe in the 15th-17th centuries.
Guess why the people living in Europe today are mostly secular?
Couldn't have anything to do with the God-fearing zealots killing each other off, could it?
Ahh, that would be natural selection, and human evolution, and we can't teach that to the young 'uns in this Wepublic...
Chocolate Proton: Have to disagree...not so much to defend God as to defend logic!
Omniscient, omnipotent, love. Check.
First off, lot of churches consider the phrase "God is love" to be meaningless or heretical. Most fundies do.
If the above are all true, then there cannot be infanticide, or rape-torture-homicides of Catholic nuns and genocide is right the fuck out.
How do you draw this inference? Show your work. The existence of evil, to me, suggests a SERIOUS world, not a flawed one.
Is the Christian God ignorant of these (and other) crimes against humanity? If so, then the whole omnicient thing fails, and there is no Christian God.
Yeah, but no religon postulates an ignorant God (well, zoroastrianism does, but that's OT). So this is kind of a straw man. The real "problem of evil" is this: is the divine understanding of evil (or of anything else) commensurate with the human understanding of evil? There's no logical reason to assume so.
Is the Christian God unable to affect what happens to people here on earth?
How's about "unwilling." If we set up a nature preserve, do we go and intervene every time an owl is about to swoop down on a bunny rabbit? The concept of an interventionist God is rejected in many Christian religious circles (though not funndie ones). Personally, I like the Greek concept of moira, which limits the actions of gods. Could God make a triangle with two sides? Obviously not.
If the Christian God is both able to intervene in our lives, and knows what evil is here but still does nothing (as is obviously what is happening), then the Christian God has no love for us, and there is no Christian God.
False premises, false conclusion. My feeling is if God exists, he/she/it doesn't exist in order to cater to our whims. This is OUR mess, and we have to get ourselves out of it. The problem isn't whether God has enough love; the problem is whether human beings do. And whether they have dignity. And that, in the context of the Christian myth (if you like) is what we're here to find out...not whether God fails us, but whether we fail ourselves, and, by extentuion, God.
Sorry about all this, but the "Problem of Evil" is a remarkably shallow philosophical conceit, and there are lots of Christians (and lots of other religious people) who shrugged it off centuries ago.
Ooops...typo. Should have read:
Christians (and lots of other NON-religious people) who shrugged it off centuries ago.
As an out-of-the-closet atheist myself (including a column in a major daily), and son of a conservative evangelical minister, I totally agree with what you said, Atrios.
Say it louder. WTF if people like Kerry or other candidates start de-linking you, like Kos. Or if candidate squishes or supporters say you're "hurting the cause" by attacking Christianity.
Note to posters defending "eastern religions" as somehow superior to bad Western monotheism:
Ever hear of the Hindu Nationalist Party, now governing India? Ever see how significant strains of Buddhism got "nationalized" along with the militarization of Japan in the 1930s? It can happen with any religion, folks.
I started the Demos' political season as a Kucinich backer. But, as I read more about the degree of his New Ageishness, I began to get squeamish. (Being an amateur science junkie, I started asking myself how his beliefs would affect federal science research funding.) Then, his support for an anti-flag burning amendment was the last straw.
I found it sad that an alleged "real progressive" could be that clueless about not having a "real progressive" understanding of the First Amendment.
Amen to Beth. There are a lot of straw-man formulations running through the comments here...don't like the annoying fundies in your town or family, so just lump all "Christians" in with 'em and bash away.
Being inclusive does NOT mean establishing a competing theocracy or swallowing school prayer, abortion bans, intelligent design curricula, and anti-gay legislation. (This stuff gets the most press, but it isn't what many or even most Christians are focused on.) Being inclusive DOES mean you have to narrowly focus your opposition to these various right-wing cancers instead of going all "Waiting to Exhale" and broadbrushing the entire religion, no matter how cathartic that might feel. It DOES mean suppressing your native distaste and reaching out on occasion, considering your audience and maybe even learning some "code words" that resonate with them (If Bush can fake it, so can we!), and campaigning in a way that doesn't repel fence-sitting believers.
My parents, who happen to be [non-fundie] Methodists, hate every one of Bush's policies. Attack those policies, and they'll agree with you. Insult his professed Christianity, though, and you insult their deeply-held beliefs by extension. Guess what their reaction will be?
... the dogma of atheists appeals to me less than the dogma of catholics ...
Individual atheists may be rigid in their beliefs, and reflexive in their arguments, but there is no such thing as atheist dogma.
You may think that's too fine a distinction, but I think it's a crucial one.
Recent comment by noted Harvard evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker:
"The Bible is a manual for rape, genocide and teh destruction of families. ... Religion has given us stonings, witch burnings, crusades, Inquisitions, jihads, fatwas, suicide bombers ... and motehrs who drown their children in the river." (From a lecture about the evolutionary psychology of religion.)
Note to Kornpone: There is no such religion as "secular humanism." The SCOTUS reference was in a footnote only. Besides, the SCOTUS arguably has no power to say "X is a religion" as that itself could be seen as an infringement.
Of course, the IRS regularly rules on tax-exempt statuses of various religious or quasi-religious groups.
I grew up in a family which believed that you don't flaunt 1) your money, 2) your politics (o--o-o-o-o-ps!), or 3) your religion.
Well, lotsa luck with selling those values in 2004!...
I'd update the credo: In public, please, don't 1) defecate, 2) have sex, 3) flaunt spiritual beliefs. All of these are important, healthy, pleasurable facets of life, but they should never be imposed on others without consent. Our freedoms depend on civility and discretion.
So I agree with Atrios's list of hostilities and fear that, in addition, Christian evangelicals are doing far more harm to society than we can afford. Modern American Christianity isn't about spiritual values. Instead it is making us witness yet another depressing display of the church's love affair with Caesar and political-secular power even as it takes a gigantic dump right on our social contract.
My parents, who happen to be [non-fundie] Methodists, hate every one of Bush's policies. Attack those policies, and they'll agree with you. Insult his professed Christianity, though, and you insult their deeply-held beliefs by extension. Guess what their reaction will be?
So what, we're not allowed to criticize his self-serving and constant invocation of his born-again as a means of putting him and his policies right next to the godhead for fear of insulting your mom and dad?
Turbonium,
I agree it's politically stupid to unnecessarily alienate voters, but I think I'd draw the line at reaching out through code words and faking it. There's a fine line between 'reaching out' and 'pandering', especially in light of the anti-atheism in politics. At best, it's like asking a light-skinned black politician to pass as white in order to be more electable. At worst, it's like using neo-Confederate code words to win in the south.
I believe the Left is large enough to embrace both believers and non-believers, and we are best served by making both feel welcome.
A large portion of the animosity felt on the left for conservative christians is a result of the significant dichotomy between the stated goals and values of all Christianity, and the intolerant reactionary ignorance of the evangelicals.
To paraphrase Vonnegut:
'Socialism is as close to Jesus as a government can get.'
And he's right, but for the conservative christians their politics and religion intermingle to the extent that pointing out hypocrisy in either arena is absolute blasphemy.
And don't ask me to hug someone who has already condemned me to an eternity of pain and fire. If they cannot see that such a condemnation is directly contrary to the teachings of the religious teacher they claim to follow, then hugging them won't do a GODdamn thing.
Hell I'm an atheist scientist (therefore "intellectual"), in fact in the biological sciences. My profession contravenes so many different aspects of evangelical christianity it's not funny.
Well alright, it IS funny to me, because these same aspects are predicated on the ignorant rantings of their leaders, who wouldn't know Jesus if he walked up and hugged them. In fact they'd probably beat the snot out of him, suspecting homosexuality from any many who hugs another.
"The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it
possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the
prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which,
while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom
of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of
obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro'
the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one,
every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians
& Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country
threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of
power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.
And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god,
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/l.../lit/
jeff04.htm
Note also the mention of Deism.
I like the original post, Atrios. But I notice a disturbing lack of rigor on both sides of this debate. The person on the other side of the argument is neither Bush nor Pol Pot.
Atrios,
great rant!! As a lapsed Catholic I want to underline EVERY SINGLE WORD.
OT: Now if you could cut the media whore Bob Woodward less slack that would be great, too ...
LOVE your site!
"You're right about the human heart thing. The author Mary Renault once said that "Politics like sex is only a by-product of what the essential person is. If you are mean and selfish and cruel it will come out in your sex life and it will come out in your politics when what really matters is that you are the sort of person who won't behave like that." To which I would only add that religion is also a by-product of what the essential person is."
What a wonderful statement Bruce Garrett! Beth, you have excellent ideas too.
Good posts.
If everyone would stop flaming for a minute. Put down the flamethrowers and back slowly away...
I grew up and practiced my religion for several decades. I slowly grew out of my church because it could no longer answer my need. The further away I get, the more clearly I see.
I understand those who think through the filter of their religious dogma. They have never seen the world without it. They mean well, but cannot hear you. I understand those who have not had the religious experience. They are suspicious of all things demanding faith, and believe anyone who is religious is somehow bigoted and exclusive.
Little bits of both are true, but not true for every atheist and every religious person.
So, for those who have suffered in the hands of the hateful religious person, not all people of faith are so. For those who have suffered in the hands of the hateful atheist person, not all those who don't believe in god are so.
So stop getting negative and realize this very thread shows why the US as a country has lasted as long as it has without a "state" religion.
As a country, we agreed not to agree. We agreed not to discuss each other's beliefs, nor allow them to matter in the day to day transactions with each other.
The red alert sirens are sounding now. The few smug "far right" religious "leaders" are forcing our politicians to choose. To bring the discussion to the foreground, and therefore break the silence.
Actually the world is shuddering with the rumblings of "fundamentalism" in all religions worldwide. We are becoming more polarized by the minute.
We should not have to choose. We should not have to declare either for or against. We should be able to live in unquestioned peace with our neighbor.
Turbonium -- I bet your parents are smarter than that. I bet the recognize the gulf between professed Christianity, 2004 vintage, and practiced Christianity -- the latter being something Bush has never indulged in to my knowledge.
Sorry about the repeated posts upthread. There's a strange thing with this browser's comments window that I didn't notice was happening. Shrug.
Interesting thread.
You get go get 'em!
As for me, I'm hoping the Gibbon hypothesis proves true in the case of the 'Merkin Empire.
Y'all have permission to shoot me if you ever catch me coming out of a church.
Without Christians there would have been no slavery, no apartheid. Racists used the bible to justify all of these. You know that.
Right, because people without faith couldn't think of any justification to feed their own greed and selfishness. Only religious people are racist, cruel or otherwise bad.
Your argument is ridiculous, because religion -- like any other viewpoint of humans -- is used for good and ill.
... Your argument is ridiculous, because religion -- like any other viewpoint of humans -- is used for good and ill ...
That is precisely the point Mr. Garrett was making. You took part of his statement too literally, and ignored the rest of it.
I agree with your assertion that religion is used for good and ill, but your criticism of Garrett's statement was misguided.
I actually witnessed a friend and co-worker get fired for outing himself as an atheist and mouthing off about it in front of our born-again boss.
How did I feel about that?
1) I felt sorry for my friend.
2) I felt a little outraged about the discrimination implications of it.
3) I lost respect for my boss, who I had always listened to explain his religious beliefs at great length, even though I, an atheist, opposed them.
4) I thought my friend was an idiot.
Let me explain that last point, because it's the important one.
Most people that become atheists, including me, do so because we're sick of religion. For most people, there's an active chip-on-the-shoulder attitude thing to it. For years, I enjoyed teasing proselytizers who wanted to save me.
I grew out of that. I'm still an atheist, but I don't feel like I need to go out of my way to pick fights with religious people anymore. I DO hate certain religions, in particular the weird variety of American destructive right-wing fundamentalism that we have too much of in this country, but I don't actively seek out people to wrassle with over it.
My friend was that type. He wanted to wrassle. He had a right to his opinion, but some things are just dumb, and getting into a religious debate with your fundamentalist boss is really, just dumb.
I told him I was an agnostic. Agnostic sounded much more open-minded than atheist, and it doesn't sound like a declaration of war on religion, which atheism often becomes. In a way, I am an agnostic.
I don't know for sure whether there is or isn't a God, just like I don't know a lot of things for sure. But, I am an atheist. I just know I'd rather operate on the belief that there isn't a God. It's simpler and more aesthetically pleasing.
Deliberately getting into fights over religion when it's not necessary strikes me as a little immature, and I speak as a person who spent a long time in that immature phase. So, I don't get too outraged over this stuff.
Atrios is right about atheists just about not being able to hold office. Mississippi, for instance, has an (unconstitutional) amendment in the state constitution that states that anybody who does not believe in a higher power may not hold office. If I'm correct, a few other states have similar laws.
Laws such as this give me the idea that God is dead, and his murderers are the political office holders who claim to hold him so closely in their hearts.
When Jefferson spoke of a wall of separation between church and state, he was referring to an idea advanced by the Puritan founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams, who called for a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." The first amendment protects the religious from the depradations of government, and government from the religious.
Pity the willfull ignorance of those who use Jefferson's oratory in the Declaration as a club to pound into us the faith of our founding fathers. Jefferson's views of religion would not be popular among today's religious right:
"What an effort... of bigotry in politics and religion have we gone through! The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power and priestcraft. All advances in science were proscribed as innovations. They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement."
"Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
Uh, Atrios. I love ya and all man, but...
First you say:
I'm tired of liberalish Christians telling me it's my job to reach out to Christian moderates who feel that "the Left" is hostile to them. Screw that. It's time for liberalish Christians to tell their slightly more right-leaning brethren that those of us who fight to maintain the separation between Church and State do it to protect freedom of religion - not destroy it. It's time for moderate and liberal Catholics to take a stand against their Church's assault on Democratic (and only Democratic) politicians who deviate from doctrine.
But then you say:
The issue is not religion - it's religion and politics. As long as religions aren't too coercive of their members, I'm happy for people to do what they want. But, once religion gets involved in politics I have no need to be tolerant or nice about it. I can be tolerant of your religion without being tolerant of your politics. That's the issue.
Now I'm really confused as to what the Christian Left is supposed to do.
You think that mixing politics and religion is bad. But you also say that the Christian Left needs to take a public political stand against the Christian Right.
I am fairly certainly that you are not saying "mixing politics and religion is bad WHEN THEY DO IT BUT GOOD WHEN WE DO IT" so I'm at a loss to know what it is that the Christian Left could possibly do to please you.
What's the deal, man? Do we Christian lefties mix our faith into the political discussion and attack the Christian Right for their political and social stands? Or do we keep our religion out of our politics -- which, you'll note, has been the liberal Christian tradition for years -- and just be quiet about?
You can't have it both ways -- or you can, but only if you sacrifice integrity by saying "our" Christians should bring religion into it and "theirs" should not.
Some guidance please, Atrios. What should Allen Brill be doing?
--Kynn
So what, we're not allowed to criticize [Bush's] self-serving and constant invocation of his born-again as a means of putting him and his policies right next to the godhead for fear of insulting your mom and dad?
No, of course not. Bush's hypocrisy and his cynical exploitation of Christian symbolism is fair game--fire away, by all means! In fact, this would be a great issue for countering the conventional wisdom about Repubs. (Would Jesus have lied to us and invaded Iraq? What would he say to 43 million uninsured Americans? Global warming and environmental destruction?)
No, what I'm talking about is simply the tendency to sneer at or patronize sincere religious belief. It's fine in private company, but when done publicly it undermines a substantive liberal platform that many moderate Christians might otherwise find compelling...flies, vinegar, honey. Having got past the "confrontational atheism" phase, I personally couldn't give a crap what people choose to believe, but I still want as many of them as possible on our side come November.
Turbonium -- I bet your parents are smarter than that. I bet they recognize the gulf between professed Christianity, 2004 vintage, and practiced Christianity
As turns out, they are, and they do. My extended family is quite another matter, however. I have two aunts and two uncles who, whether they realize it or not, all have moderate to liberal instincts when it comes to policy issues. All four of these people are voting for Bush in 2004, though, because to them all that matters ultimately is that "he's a good Christian", and that his party makes them feel right at home. Drives me nuts to hear it. If there's any hope of winning them over, though, it lies in disproving that assertion--trashing their belief system 'cause it makes me feel better won't do the trick.
And yeah, Beth, maybe some 'code words' would be over the line...I didn't mean to suggest anything sinister. I just hear Bush using these archaic, vaguely Biblical constructions in his speeches, and racking up points. I don't think he's being sincere either, but it does send the message "I'm on your side" loud and clear.
Buddha was not a god - he was perhaps the greatest man who ever lived.
In Anguttara Nikaya, Buddha said:
"Do not believe anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it."
"If you just look at the Bill of Rights..."
Kelley, as noted above, the establishment clause of the first amendment does not contain the "separation of church and state" idea you folks seem to believe is sacrosanct. That expression comes from the private letters of Jefferson, not the 1st amendment, which merely proscribes ESTABLISHMENT of religion. That religion should not be involked incivic matters is more or less invalideated the founding document of the US, which cites divine authority of nature's god in its very first sentence.
More generally, skepticism suggests agnosticism, not atheism. Scientific theory is no more useful (and often substantially more harmful) than scripture as a basis for social policy.
A friend of mine made a good point about the whole targeting of Catholic Democrats by the Church...why are Republicans who support the Death Pentalty not also excumunicated/suggested that they be refused communion/otherwise shat upon?
Wow...there's been a lot said, and I think most of it has been very intelligent and well-put. That being said, I just have to add my two cents.
First, though, where I'm coming from. I'm a White Male Christian, and I've even been told on occasion that I'm a nice guy. I do think that "Jesus Saves" and a few of the more evangelical bits found in the New Testament, but on the other hand, I also don't think you can force someone into believing the same way you do. I've known some very cool people who were Mormons, Atheists, and Muslims, and not come away thinking that any of them were possessed by some demonic entity.
The thing that's really tricky when talking about beliefs is that your dealing with a matter of faith. No less, no more. I believe that you can convince people that your beliefs are "true" or "correct," and do it in a way that doesn't insult them, but ultimately it comes down to the person making the decision for him or herself.
Now that I've prefaced everything, onto the topic at hand...
I think every person's belief system gets stomped on. I feel bad for Muslims who are stereotyped as bombers, but then I've also heard it said that anyone who believes in God is just living some kind of fairy tale, which does sting a bit. And of course you have Wiccans treated as "witches," and I'm sure other religious barbs that I've either forgotten or don't know about.
The problem, at least in politics, is that while I feel that while beliefs should temper political views, politicians have an obligation NOT to place their beliefs ahead of everyone else's. That's one thing that I truly feel is lost on the current administration. I think Christianity is good, but to set laws that blatantly favor it, to insult people without that belief system--it is wrong, pure and simple. If you're going to promote Christianity while in office, they I say do it as a Christian--help out the poor and downtrodden, be generous and open, volunteer your time at soup kitchens, get to know those constituents who may not have much of a voice normally.
Okay, I'm finished, but I'd like to ask one thing about atheism--isn't it inherently better than any other belief system? I mean, there's no final reward or eternal damnation, so can't you do whatever you feel like doing? I'm honestly not being sarcastic with that; Just curious.
Hysteria
I'm a little late, but I have to chime in.
First, we need to stop using the word "religious" to describe Christian extremists. I am "religious" - I am a Pagan.
Then we need to point out that the problems ascribed to "religion" are, in fact, a result of Patriarchy and monotheism. My religion says "and it harm none, do as thou wilt". That can't be used to justify slavery, war, sexism, or racism.
I also want to mention the Brights Movement, which is an attempt to organize atheists/agnostics and anyone who chooses to live without religion. I support the movement, though I wish they'd stop sneering at us Pagans long enough to realize we need to work together to protect ourselves from the Big Daddy death cult.
Hysteria: Well, really, ANYONE can do anything he or she wants to do--even deists of one stripe or another--regardless of whether we believe in a hereafter. I was taught (by my atheist parents) to do unto others as I would have others do unto me, and that has always seemed to me to be a good place to start for any ethical system. If we think long and clearly about what that means, I think we can eradicate slavery, and promote social justice, for example, without regard to any religious beliefs whatsoever. If you get to the same place because your god(s) encourage you to do so, that's fine with me. Just don't insist that I believe in your gods, and don't judge my actions on the basis of that (lack of) belief.
p.s. Thanks, Atrios; great post.
Amen....er...right on!
Bias against short people is universally acceptable--hardly ever recognized as bias, even among the more tolerant in a society--and a person's height is obvious.
Are you sure that you aren't merely overlooking the obvious superiority to the tall? I kid, I kid.
This religion thing is is really getting to me more and more as I get older. The other day I was amazed to hear a freind of my daughter's, who otherwise seems perfectly sane say that she is against gay marriage, though she has friends that are gay, because the bible says that being gay is wrong. My daughter's reaction, I'm proud to say, was to spend three days agonizing over whether or not she could continue to be friends with her knowing what she now knew.
Hysteria, you asked "I mean, there's no final reward or eternal damnation, so can't you do whatever you feel like doing? I'm honestly not being sarcastic with that; Just curious."
To me, being an athiest means that I have to be more careful about what I do in life - this is the only chance I get, and I have to answer to myself, and I can be a pretty harsh judge of my own actions.
Since I don't believe in a god, I feel responsible for my own failure and success - they can't be "the will of God" (though blind luck should get credit for some of the success).
Hysteria, you asked "I mean, there's no final reward or eternal damnation, so can't you do whatever you feel like doing? I'm honestly not being sarcastic with that; Just curious."
To me, being an athiest means that I have to be more careful about what I do in life - this is the only chance I get, and I have to answer to myself, and I can be a pretty harsh judge of my own actions.
Since I don't believe in a god, I feel responsible for my own failure and success - they can't be "the will of God" (though blind luck should get credit for some of the success).
Hysteria, you asked "I mean, there's no final reward or eternal damnation, so can't you do whatever you feel like doing? I'm honestly not being sarcastic with that; Just curious."
To me, being an athiest means that I have to be more careful about what I do in life - this is the only chance I get, and I have to answer to myself, and I can be a pretty harsh judge of my own actions.
Since I don't believe in a god, I feel responsible for my own failure and success - they can't be "the will of God" (though blind luck should get credit for some of the success).
Man, just quit your lousy snivelin'
I like ya, but damn if I want a snively dog catcher.
Buck up little camper. I dont like ya sad sackin. Nobody likes a whiner.
Good nite! Nappy time!
Signed sincerly
GOD
OMFG!
Every day I pray that God would help us to be a nation that desires purity and avoids debauchery, pornography, perversion, drunkeness, drug use and gambling. And I make my children avoid these things, even using threats of violence against them when neccessary.
But this is a far cry from forcing an adult to do the same. I am not my brothers keeper, and to act like I am is to bring my brother down to the level of an animal.
In Gideon's day God had to get about thirty-two thousand men down to about three hundred to achieve His purposes, lest they boast they had saved themselves by their own strength. And even after Gideon sent for troops to chase and destroy the fleeing army of the Midianites, the tribal leaders were still violently angry with him. Why? He didn't send for them went he first went out to fight!
This great pious nation of Israel was really just a violent bunch of hotheads, unfit for God's purposes. It's like this in our nation today. The Christians in our nation have such a love for violent solutions that they are of no use to God.
What is causing the quarrels and fights among you? Isn't it because there is a whole army of evil desires within you? You want what you don't have, so you destroy lives to get it. You long for what others have, and can't afford it, so you start a political fight to take it away from them. And yet the reason you don't have is that you don't ask God for it. And even when you do ask you don't get it because your whole aim is wrong - you want only what will give you pleasure.
It's absolutely outrageous that anyone would suggest that an atheist cannot be patriot or a citizen. I had the opportunity to see the Dalai Lama on Sunday when he gave a public address in Toronto. Among other things, he spoke about the importance of secular constitutions, using India as an example. He pointed out that a secular constitution is not anti-religion. It is rather open to all religions — including atheists. "Unbelievers must be protected," he said. But I don't suppose the fundamentalists give two figs about the Dalai Lama, a man who practices what he preaches...
Can progressives craft a message that appeals to Christians and other faith-based voters? Check out my imaginary Kerry speech on faith-based liberalism at:
http://worldonfire.typepad.com/
w...n_our_side.html
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
