It's one of those days when I feel very hostile toward religion.

[BurtWorm]

I don't always. Usually I find religion to be only a minor irritant and I don't begrudge anyone the right to believe in whatever they want to believe in. Not today. I've been reading Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby and getting royally pissed off at the idea that a person could be ruined in America for not being a Christian or any other kind of religious sucker, even if, like Tom Paine, they were heroes of the Revolution or, like William Garrison, Lucretia Mott or Ernestine Rose, leaders of the anti-slavery movement. If Lincoln hadn't been careful to cover up his own skeptical and freethinking tendencies with ambiguous hat tips to "the Maker" or "Creator", even he could have wound up neglected by American history (mainly because he would never have been elected).

I submit this proposition--for debate, if you'd like: Religion is a hobby, no more, no less. It is as necessary to one's well-being as collecting baseball cards or building replicas of monuments out of toothpicks. You do not need religion to live well, and, in fact, it's probably good for the mind to learn to do without religion. America would be a vastly better place if religion got knocked off its pedestal and stopped trying to poke its nose where it isn't wanted or needed--especially in government or the civic square.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. One can get by without religion

I think religions were meant to control the masses and form rules for living. Religions vary. If we were Hindus we would have cows wandering around town!

[PunkPop]

2. I'm with you

but this is kind of flamebait.

People have a lot invested in their religous beliefs.

I see a locked thread in your future.

[PunkPop]

8. Nevermind

Thought it was GD

[kwassa]

3. Today I feel all warm and fuzzy about religion.

Hobby? how peculiar.

[BOSSHOG]

4. I'm with you teammate

I was a devout Cathlic for many years. Was an Altar Boy, contemplated the Priesthood. But I stopped going to Mass because I got tired of being instructed on who to hate. That was what the majority of the sermons were about; evil gays, hateful liberals, god hating journalists. Fuck em. I don't need to go to church to be a law abiding, tax paying productive citizen.

[Dorian Gray]

100. Wow!

I'm glad that I don't go to church where you went to church. Where we go to church, our "sermons" (we call them homilies in my Roman Catholic Church) are primarily about our duty in our community, showing love and charity for others, and embracing God's love. I rarely hear anything about hatred, unless it is condemnation. And our priests spend no time addressing homosexuality or other such issues. And, I know our priests personally and well.

I guess churches are different in different communities, but when my husband attended the Angelicum Seminary in Rome (he considered becoming a priest until he learned he wasn't called to the priesthood), the Franciscan priests and brothers in the order where he lived (a monastery in the outskirts of Rome) did not spend any time at all with hatred. They prayed much, and they spent most of their days loving (or trying to love) those around them.

While I know that there are inherent problems in Catholicism, it's wrong to speak of the embroiled hatred in the theology. Perhaps I'm an optimist, but most of the theology is centered around love and charity. Of course, individuals and institutions can corrupt such a message, and it has been corrupted and abused throughout the years. But the central message of Catholicism (and Christianity in general) is one of love and charity. Make of it what you will. If people are hateful, they will twist the message to serve their needs. I am not hateful, therefore I find the charity in Christ's message (and the Catholic Church's mandate here in my community) to be inspirational.


Sorry this is more impassioned than I usually become about these things. I usually read and respond with one liners, but having been personally touched by the generosity of my church and priests in my parish this past week, I felt it was important to counter the prior statement and defend what I find beautiful.

[nannah]

5. my biggest problem with religion is the magical thinking

that accompanies it.... which disrupts people's instinct to seek survival.

i have often thought that greed and magical thinking will make us a failed species as we fail to adapt to the reality of our world and the real rules of survival rather than the rules for acquiring wealth and power or the rules for going to heaven which in no way resemble the rules for surviving as a living organism.

[Duncan]

15. Well said. NT

[BridgeTheGap]

6. "Spirituality is an expression of our relationship

with the divine...Religion is crowd control." unknown

"The great religions are the ships, Poets the lifeboats. Every sane person I know has jumped overboard. This is good for business. Hafiz - 14th century Sufi poet.

[mopinko]

7. religion is an evolutionary vestige

the hardwired instinct to rely on a troop leader. we're all looking for our tribe, and our big silverback monkey leader. so, now you know why so many accept * as their leader.

[nannah]

10. a vestigal organ stops being used before

it's deemed vestigal.

[nannah]

13. or maybe becoming vestigel is preceded

by becoming detritmental and damaging to the organism, rather than merely useless?

biologists?

[badgerpup]

30. I'm no biologist...

...but I see 'religion' more as sort of a social matrix? glue? extended clan structure? in which people of like beliefs will bond and reinforce each other. They're the 'US' vs the 'THEM', and they often watch out for those that they consider their own.
Children are indoctrinated on acceptable belief and clan behavior, and outsiders -THEM- are not only welcomed but strongly encouraged to join the clan. This consists of exhibiting the correct behaviors and going along with the same belief system.

I'm a cynic on this subject, so it seems almost as though the more people converted, the more 'right' that particular sect is proven to be. :shrug:

I'm differentiating from 'spirituality' here. Spirituality happens inside yourself and you don't necessarily need rites, rituals, lectures, bell, book, and candle etc. to make it happen.
These adjuncts may help get you into a mental or emotional place so you can commune with your spiritual being, but they aren't the thing itself.
A lot of people lose sight of this, methinks.

All this is just my own opinion based on people watching and my own confusion because I still haven't figured out What Makes People Tick.
:wtf:

[sshan2525]

9. Well put......

and I agree 100% with you.

[CrispyQ]

11. I find it interesting that when something good happens in some people's lives,

they give thanks to god. But when something bad happens, they don't blame god. It seems very one-sided to me. God gets credit for the good stuff, but no blame for the bad stuff.

I think the whole world would be better without religion, but I'm not sure that will ever happen.

Bumper sticker philosophy:

Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
Spirituality is for those who have been there.

[BurtWorm]

14. I like that bumper sticker.

I used to be much more spiritual as a younger person. I no longer think of myself as spiritual, and I don't miss trying to be spiritual. But I do like that bumpersticker! :toast:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. I'll buy that

if by religion you mean the institutional structures that have lately so intruded upon our political landscape. Dogmas that basically say, "I'm right, no one else is, and everyone must agree with me" are not condusive to peaceful co-existance, and even may be considered dangerous, especially when such beliefs incite violence.

I think a study of religion and its effect upon society is important, however, in understanding the world. To know nothing about religion or how it operates would hamper one's understanding of the Religious Right's role in US politics, or the role of Islam in countries such as Saudi Arabia.

It is also important to remember that there is religion and there is religion. There are many religious liberals whose whole message is tolerance, respect for differing beliefs, and working for social justice. No need to throw these people out with the Falwells and Wahhibists.

[Evoman]

16. In keeping with the OP

It is also important to remember that there is stamp collecting and there is stamp collecting. There are many stamp-collecting liberals whose whole message is tolerance, respect for differing beliefs, and working for social justice. No need to throw these people out with the Gun collectors and the Canned sports hunters.

[BurtWorm]

17. You got it.

:toast:

[Shadrach]

18. That would work

But only if the action of stamp collecting was done for a greater cause (social justice, teaching tolerance, teaching respect, etc.). Your comparison to what ayeshahaqqiqa is saying doesn't really work unless the liberal stamp collecting is doing something to achieve the goal that a liberal religion is trying to accomplish.

[Evoman]

19. The action of religion is not done for a greater cause.

It is done to sustain the religion, that is it. What is stopping a liberal religious person from committing themselves to social justice, without adding a bunch of Jesus crap along with it.

The only difference between the liberal collector and the liberal religionist, is that the collector REALIZES that its just a hobby. If both of them are committed to justice and tolerance, then why accept that religion has anything to do with it?

[Shadrach]

21. I think it is done for both

to sustain religion and for the greater good. Not for all religions but for some sects of different religions. People are inspired by the teachings of a specific religion, congregate, and act on those teaching.

There has got to be some inspirational messages on those cards that the card collectors are collecting to get them excited for the greater good.

You know, "Wow a Joe Montana rookie card! Now I am going to give to the poor!"

On EDIT : Spelling

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. except one thing

I have yet to see a stamp collecting catalog that has inspired someone with wise words to adapt and practice that which I have mentioned. Perhaps the books and practices of various religions have not inspired you, but it is obvious that they have inspired many, including Lincoln (House Divided speech for one)and Martin Luther King and Ghandi.

[BurtWorm]

23. I find it hard to believe that religion of itself causes anyone to do good.

Religion without a guiding philosophy is a pretty shell with no guts. It's philosophy most religious people owe their sense of morals to. Not religion.

Lincoln is a very complicated case. He used religious language, knowing his audience very well. Apparently he may even have tried as hard as he could to find some sign from "Providence" (as he called it) to show him the way forward. But there is very strong evidence (especially the testimony of his closest friends and associates) that he had a very unconventional view of the divine. He was probably a deist, if a believer of any kind.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. Just reading a book about Lincoln right now

and I agree that Lincoln had an interesting philosophy. Apparently he believed in some sort of Force beyond himself, but he didn't believe in an afterlife. Instead, he felt that a person lived on in the memories of those still alive. In fact, he told his friend Joshua Speed that his life's ambition was to do something in his lifetime that would cause a great many people to remember him. After he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he reminded Speed of this.

[More Than A Feeling]

46. I once thought the same as Lincoln apparently did

Then I realized that all the people who would ever remember me will someday be dead as well.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

48. Perhaps

I can tell you the names of most of my direct ancestors off the top of my head, and can tell you a bit about them. I have privately published my genealogy and have made it available to numerous cousins, so in that way those names will stay alive in memory to anyone who is interested in family history and genealogy.

That being said, I think your very thought is what movtivated Lincoln to continue to strive to do something that would so raise him in the esteem of Americans that he would be remembered long after all his contemporaries and their children were dead. And in that he certainly succeeded.

[Meshuga]

67. I'm pretty close to what you said of Lincoln

He shares the same no-afterlife concept and that we should live our lives as if we are filling up our obituary. You know, what about us do we want people to remember when we are gone?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

75. And that is a decent motivation

to try and do the best you can to help the most people, if you want them to have good memories of you.

[More Than A Feeling]

22. Disagree in part, agree in part.

as a practical matter, there are many paths in life. If you have little confidence in your ability to pick the correct path, and stay on it, religion can give you a helping hand. On the other hand , if you know yourself, and you know your path, then you don't need any religions, gods, preachers, etc. So in that sense, it's a little more than stamp-collecting.

I do agree with you that religion is never a legitimate justification for dominating anyone, or for any other unjust action. Nor does religion have any authority for deciding which actions are just and unjust, since you can just as easily say that God approves of one action as another, and who can prove you wrong?

[BurtWorm]

26. A psychotherapist would do more for such a person than a priest.

And philosophy is usually of greater help in finding a useful path than religion--in fact, whatever wisdom religion has at its disposal to dispense is almost always appropriated from philosophy. What a person would get from a cleric is, in addition to the slim possibility of solid, practical advice, a good possibility of a lot of useless godtalk (and guilt tripping) thrown in.

[Pacifist Patriot]

29. Not all clerics are cut from the same cloth.

[More Than A Feeling]

31. Give me the psychotherapist priest!

I just blew your mind, didn't I? :silly:

What do you have in mind when you say "philosophy"? Or "religion", for that matter? Let's define terms before we go further.

[BurtWorm]

33. Philosophy: search for wisdom.

Religion: wishful sign to the likeliest gods out there not to hurt anyone under its umbrella.

[More Than A Feeling]

39. Using those definitions, you would be correct.

Counseling is highly effective. Do you think that if people took the money they donated to church, and saved it, they could afford enough therapy to replace the lost mental value of religious beliefs?

Also, is Buddhism a religion, or a philosophy?

[BurtWorm]

42. In a sensible world, universal care would cover psychotherapy.

You wouldn't have to pay for it out of pocket. Society would value mental health enough to want to care for people who minds needed it.

As for Buddhism, I think it can be either. The more it focuses on responses to life on earth, the more it resembles philosophy.

[Pacifist Patriot]

44. Ah! This is why we're unlikely to have a productive discussion.

I disagree with your definition of religion.

Cheers!

[More Than A Feeling]

45. Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of religion? n/t

[BurtWorm]

50. What is your definition of religion?

[Pacifist Patriot]

54. I find all definitions troublesome, but I suppose I like this one best.

An organized system of belief that generally seeks to understand purpose, meaning, goals, and methods of spiritual things. These spiritual things can be God, people in relation to God, salvation, after life, purpose of life, order of the cosmos, etc.

In other words, I would include those sects of Buddhism that do not involve deities and Religious Humanism as religions despite their lack of god(s).

God is a symbol to me that has been misused through concretization. i.e. God is a verb, not a noun. ;)

[BurtWorm]

68. Let us take bottlecap collection as an organized system of belief

--namely, that collections of bottle caps are valuable. Talk about purpose, meaning, goals and methods! In the beginning the bottlecap said, "Collect me," and there was no day of rest for the bottlecap collector, but a seeming eternity of order in the cosmos. Of course, you could say that bottle caps are not spiritual things. The bottle cap collector might even agree with you to a point, i.e., the mysterious point when they transcend mere bottle-capness and become "Collectible..."

But seriously, if God is a verb, then could one say, "God god a verb?" Or is God intransitive?

(I'm feeling dizzy and need to have a lie-down.)

[Pacifist Patriot]

70. LOL! Well I do think you're stretching the point just a weensy bit.

The better question is, "Is God in the passive voice or....aggressive?" Bwa! Couldn't help it! Psycho-grammar babble.

[BurtWorm]

72. I'm really glad you laughed!

;)

The truth is, I'm not feeling well and am on the virge of delerious. I really ought to get home and lie down.

[Pacifist Patriot]

73. Religion is nothing if it can't be funny.

Go home and lie down! Minister's orders. ;)

[trotsky]

24. Where the comparison of religion to a hobby falls short...

There is near universal agreement among baseball card collectors about exactly which ones are valuable and which are not.

Even some of the most fundamental (no pun intended) aspects of religion do not share a similar level of agreement. One god? Three? Three in one? Or thousands?

But I do share your desire for religion to removed from an unwarranted pedestal.

[BurtWorm]

27. My brother says it falls short in that many hobbies are actually useful to society.

;)

[trotsky]

34. *snort*

:spank:

[Pacifist Patriot]

28. Religion isn't the problem.

Greed and self-absorption are the problem.

The quote, "more people have been killed in the name of religion" is true only to the extent that religion was used as a thinly veiled justification for greed and power.

I suppose I could buy your argument with respect to revelatory and institutional religion, but as a personal relationship to the grandeur and mystery of existence...nah. I think it serves quite a useful purpose in our lives.

Then again, as a UU minister I'm biased.

Historically, I do see a trend towards pluralism and tolerance. It just isn't progressive as fast as many of us would prefer.

[BurtWorm]

32. I wouldn't say it is "the problem" either.

I am only saying that today I'm having difficulty seeing what use it is to society, considering that there are ways to get what it offers without having to put up with the (pardon me) gods bullshit. If religion's main effect was to make humans feel humble, it might be worth something. But it too often has quite the opposite effect.

[Pacifist Patriot]

36. That's a very Christo-centric perspective though.

Religion's end is not to make human's feel humble. Not all religions have "gods bullshit." It seems you have difficulty with religion as you have experienced it, not necessarily how it has affected billions throughout the millenia and around the globe.

In point of fact, we should probably define religion if we're going to debate it. ;)

[BurtWorm]

40. What makes you say it's Christo-centric?

What religion does not single itself out as the correct one? What priesthood (outside of the UU ministry, of course ;) ) is not set up to be one-up on the laity? What religion that has any gods does not have gods bullshit? (I agree that religion's end is not to make humans feel humble, which is one of the problems I have with it.)

I don't believe religion has affected "billions" all that helpfully throughout the millennia around the globe. The vast majority of the religious have been put and held in their place by it and had their minds shriveled by it, as far as I can tell.

This is not my personal experience of religion, by the way. I've managed to be free of it for most of my life.

[Pacifist Patriot]

41. A clerical intercessor is the exception not the norm.

Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism do not have a professional clergy functioning as intermediaries between humankind and divinity. Exclusivity is a characteristic of ethical monotheistic religions, although Judaism not remotely to the degree of Islam or Christianity. This is why I consider your proposition to be Christo-centric.

[BurtWorm]

49. So what are rabbis and imams?

When you boil it down, they're religious "authorities," right? Every religion that I know of has a hierarchy of authorities. This makes all clergy (that I know of) intercessories of a sort--though I didn't use that term, as you know--in the sense that they interpret signs or rule on laws for the benefit of the laity. As an atheist, I'm pretty confident that no religion has a clergy that actually serves as an intermediary between humans and the divine. But as far as I know, all religions have a class of specialists who pretend to do something like that, whether it is to explain scripture or read entrails or lead congregations or deliver fatwahs, or what have you.

I don't understand what you mean when you say Judaism is not remotely as exclusive as Islam or Christianity. I can't think of a religion that is more exclusive than Judaism.

[Pacifist Patriot]

51. There is a difference between a religious teacher and...

an intercessor. Rabbis and imams do not intermediate the relationship between humanity and the divine. The concept of the priesthood in Roman Catholicism is all about intercession. Judaism and Islam do not require a rabbi or imam's presence for services. Religious specialists are not directly analogous among the traditions. A Hindu guru, Buddhist master, Catholic priest and Jewish rabbi are not functionally identical.

As for Judaism, I highly recommend reading up on it apart from the Biblical traditions and the perspective subtly (and not so subtly) imparted by our Christian-satured western civilization.

[More Than A Feeling]

53. You left out Protestant ministers.

Do they intercede, or not? I know our minister offers prayers on behalf of the congregation, but does that qualify as "intercession"?

[Pacifist Patriot]

55. No, one of the tenets of the Reformation was...

allowing for a personal relationship between humanity and God. Praying "on behalf" of the congregation is an interesting choice of words. Theologically, Protestant ministers would be praying "for" the congregation, not on behalf of it. I do know ministers who phrase it that way, but it's not what is taught in the protestant seminaries/traditions with which I am familiar.

[BurtWorm]

60. What makes the religious teacher teach? What is the religious teacher teaching?

Do the students really NEED what the teachers teach? (As an atheist, I kind of doubt it.)

Could you be a little more specific about where or what to read to see how Judaism is not so exclusive as we've been led to believe? It's kind of difficult for see around the fact that Judaism is a religion pretty much exclusively for Jewish people.

[Pacifist Patriot]

62. I can make a fantastic book recommendation.

Robinson's Essential Judaism is a wonderful resource.

And Christianity is for Christians and Buddhism is for Buddhists and Hinduism is for Hinduis. Sorry, but your concluding sentence is pretty funny. It is possible to convert to all of these religions. Although, granted the ethnic basis of Judaism and Hinduism can appear to be quite a stumbling block.

Exclusivity refers to the idea that non-believers are somehow damned or excluded from some form of salvation. In general, Judaism does not assume non-Jews are somehow cosmically screwed.

[BurtWorm]

71. Okay, but I wasn't thinking in those terms

probably because I'm an atheist and don't believe in an afterlife. I tend to think in terms of the life we've got, and in that case, Judaism is pretty much exlusive to ethnically Jewish believers. My wife (or daughter) could decide right now to become observant and she would instantly be considered a religious Jew. I, on the other hand, would have to undergo a ritualistic conversion that would be anything but instant.

[trotsky]

35. Just as guns aren't the problem.

But guns do make it a hell of a lot easier to cause the problem.

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. Tell that to the Canadians who have a higher per capita gun rate...

than we do.

[trotsky]

38. Or the Europeans, who have a much lower per capital rate...

of religious beliefs.

[Pacifist Patriot]

43. And of course there is little to no strife there.

:sarcasm:

[trotsky]

47. Why the sarcasm indicator?

Should I have made a sarcastic comment about how there is little to no gun violence in Canada, and expect that to negate your point?

[Pacifist Patriot]

52. The sarcasm indicator indicates I was writing sarcasm.

There is strife in Europe despite a decrease in religious fervor.

[jgraz]

56. Exactly -- for example, in Ireland....whoops, nevermind

[Pacifist Patriot]

59. I'm not the one who brought up Europe.

Quite a number of countries there too, so I'm not sure what exactly it was supposed to prove.

[trotsky]

58. As there is gun violence in Canada.

So, we end up wondering what the heck your point was.

[Pacifist Patriot]

63. Me too. You're right. It was a dumb comment. My apologies.

My point is that people don't need religion to not get along. Nationalism, ethno-centrism, economics, and secular ideologies will do quite nicely if religion is not a convenient excuse.

[trotsky]

64. My point is that religion has been the most convenient excuse.

Since most of the time it comes with a built-in feature to get a mind to accept things that direct experience and observation would contradict.

What better reason than religion to convince someone to sacrifice their life? If they don't believe they will have a "next" life and be rewarded in it, what possible motivation could you give them?

[Pacifist Patriot]

65. I can't argue with that, but I also cannot draw the conclusion that...

because it has served as the most convenient excuse that it is utterly useless. Perhaps it has been the most prevelant excuse precisely because it is so useful to human life.

[trotsky]

76. I don't think anyone is saying that it's utterly useless.

Just that it should not be afforded the privileged position it automatically holds in society. Let it compete on a level playing field with other ideas.

[Evoman]

57. Do you have any links for that statement?

I'm Canadian and I barely know anyone with guns (and I definitely don't know anybody who owns a handgun). In fact, its really hard to get a license to use a handgun in the province I live.

[Pacifist Patriot]

61. Shit, you're right. I should have known better than to trust Michael Moore.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm entirely serious. I completely retract my statement. My apologies.

[Evoman]

66. No need to apologize....I wasn't chewing you out. I seriously want to know where

you (or Micheal Moore) got that statistic. It just suprised me.

I've been to the U.S. several times, and I'm always suprised how omnipresent guns are. Especially when I was in Montana. Gun stores everywhere. I visited a Pawn shop near a hotel I was staying and there were all kinds of guns in it...while I was there, two people purchased guns...I was astounded.

I don't even know how to go about gettting a gun where I live...I have never seen any guns (other than some hunting rifles in ONE pawn shop) in any stores. And I live in a city with abou 250 000 people.

On edit: I just looked in the yellow pages under Guns and Gunsmiths. There are only two gun store in the whole city (and one of them is the pawn shop I was talking about with the rifles).

[Pacifist Patriot]

69. I'd like to know where he got it too. Because since...

"Bowling For Columbine" was released I've heard that statistic used time and again. I Googled and clearly the U.S. has the highest per capita gun ownership rates. I know we shouldn't believe everything we read on the 'net, but the perponderance of references supports U.S. supremacy in this area.

I live in a metro area of about 100,000 in the U.S. and we only have one gun/ammo store....BUT...there's always Wal-mart. *shudder*

[MistressOverdone]

74. One man's hobby

is another's passion, or vocation.

Lots of people have achieved fame, fortune and respect without religion. There are lists and lists of famous atheists.

That said, I will be glad when the pendulum swings back to the middle a bit.

[noamnety]

77. I'm going to take a wild guess here at your demographic

I'm guessing you aren't poor and black and living along the gulf coast.

If you were, you'd understand that without the churches, many of the people in those areas would not have survived.

The churches served as shelters during the storm and the flood that followed, and served as distribution points for supplies, when FEMA and the Red Cross could not or would not deliver supplies to those areas.

I know some of the people who were on the ground in the first days after the levees broke, they were there before any government assistance arrived, and the police tried to keep them out of some of those neighborhoods - the government actively threatened to arrest them, and tried to interfere with those trying to save the lives of people whose skin was the wrong color and whose wallets were the wrong size. It was through the churches that they managed to get some of those supplies delivered to people who were starving and dying for lack of clean water, because the church structure existed outside of the structure of the US government.

For those who the government would like to exterminate, the church is most certainly NOT a hobby. It is the social net, the structure outside the structure, upon which their lives depend.

Those who are too privileged to understand that should go spend some time volunteering along the coast, and talk to people. And maybe think about what it would be like to be pissed off because your government is literally trying to kill you and trying to arrest those who provide aid to you, and know that without the church, you and your children would be dead. And then think about how it would feel to read a post like yours: "Usually I find religion to be only a minor irritant."

Myself, I'm not religious. Never have been. But I am a member of one of the organizations who worked within the church system to deliver food and water and generators (Veterans for Peace), and I've been fortunate enough to unroll my sleeping bag in the backyards of some of the black baptist churches along the coast, and eat their food and listen to their sermons. These people are gold, including their church leaders, who took on the responsibility of caring for people inside their facilities even when the food ran out, even when they had no functioning toilets, even when those church leaders were watching their own possessions float past the church in the flood.

I'm sorry it's been an irritant in your life that people who had nothing, who were the target of an attempted genocide by their own government, had one community organization who refused to turn away when they were dying. Referring to that as "a hobby" is incredibly offensive to me. I imagine it is to others, as well.

[BurtWorm]

78. What the displaced of New Orleans benefited from was community, not religion

And I think you know the difference, because your post said not a word about God or the Lord, who did less to help them than I did. The phenomenon you're talking about underscores that many people are capable of great good, even when they believe it's God and not plain human decency or altruism that's moving them.

[noamnety]

80. Theory vs. Reality

In theory, that type of community structure can exist outside of the church.

The reality is that in many of the neighborhoods I was in, it doesn't.

Theory doesn't save lives. Brick and mortar buildings that real people can physically go to for shelter, and community leaders that real people know and trust is what saved lives.

Again, it's a matter of privilege to sit back and pontificate about why poor people who aren't white - in theory - don't need to rely on the church, when most of us know full well there's nothing else out there filling the void. Empty statements like lots of people are capable of great good don't carry much weight when the water's rising and the church is the only one opening its doors to you.

[BurtWorm]

81. I repeat that that you're praising community, not religion.

You still haven't said a word about what good God was to anyone in New Orleans in the summer of 2005. You can only point to the fact of an existing community of human beings. Why don't you fill up your own statements with facts to contradict me? Religion didn't save anyone in New Orleans. Did it? If you think religion saved anyone then, show me how. You haven't done it yet. I'm waiting.

[noamnety]

83. You're trying to force a separation where it doesn't exist

And I think that is part of where your cultural understanding of religion and community is lacking. This is why I'm suggesting you go spend some time volunteering along the gulf coast, in the black or other minority communities, and listen to people.

I originally wrote talk to people, but that's not really what I meant. I mean listen.

[Shadrach]

84. Yes, community is a big part of religion

And adding...

It might be fair to say that God didn't save anybody in New Orleans but for that challenge to work you would have to see the literal God from the Bible as your concept of God. The nature of God would have to be a God who gets in our business. But I think that is not the God idea for the liberal religions. I don't think the liberal religion congregants would just sit around and say, "God will help people in New Orleans just like he helped the Hebrews in Egypt so we can sit back and wait."

Religious people save victims from hardship when they commune to help the people in need. That cannot be denied. However, I would agree that people who gather to pray for the people in need are not really saving the people in need from anything. But, I think the liberal religions are pretty active and they do walk the talk for the most part.

Their religion is their motivation.

[BurtWorm]

89. Yes, no doubt, religion is a large part of some communities in New Orleans

and many other cities around the US. Yes, many poor and dispossessed people are religious. What do I not understand? What would I understand, do you think, from spending time in these communities that I don't understand now? That religion is, on the whole, a positive force in the lives of people in these communities, and that, therefore, religion, taken as a whole is a positive, in American public life and therefore in the world at large? Is that what you think I would come to understand? What about religion, besides the fact that communities build up around it, makes it a positive force in these people's lives, makes it a force so positive no other force could accomplish the same or more for them?

[noamnety]

91. I think everyone understands things differently

so I can't say definitively: This is what you would understand. Nor will I say "God personally saved them" because I'm an atheist, so that's not something that you will hear from me. But your OP wasn't about "God" - it was about religion. And religion encompasses more than what I think you are giving it credit for.

The last line you wrote gets at what I've been trying to say: What about religion ... makes it a force so positive no other force could accomplish the same or more for them?

My bolding there, obviously. And the bolding is the difference between theory vs. reality, hypothetical utopias that could exist vs. the reality that there is nothing else filling the void. I completely agree with the hypothetical premise that such communities could exist, with facilities and community leaders, without religion, and those hypothetical communities could have taken care of hypothetical victims of a hypothetical storm.

The reality, though, is different, and I think you could probably agree with that, that such things DON'T exist as a cohesive stable force in our neighborhoods separate from the structure of government and able to function independently of it in a crisis. As an outsider, sometimes I am blown away by the idea that a community would get together once a week to listen to a village elder, of sorts, give a lecture about philosophy and ethics - and admission is free, and the community members donate what they can, or are free to donate nothing, and entirely through donations they are willing and able to support the elder and his/her family and pay for their housing and food. Really, that's an amazing thing, and it's not something I see regularly on a community level outside of religion. Think about philosophers or writers that you admire - can you imagine them just going to the town hall once a week, and hundreds of people in their neighborhood turning out to see them every single week, and the entire neighborhood agreeing to support them so they didn't have to get a regular job? In that way, religion at its best lives outside of the capitalist system, there is no set salary, no "product", only one person whose job it is to help others in a very vague undefined way, and the others in return help him. Think about your own life - do you donate regularly to an individual who inspires you, just because? That's a rhetorical question, I'm not looking for your personal answer, I'm just saying outside of the church, most people do not voluntarily offer regular and substantial support to those who dispense wisdom, not in the same way.

I've been on the losing side of prejudices against atheists before. It ticks me off. Sometimes it makes me irate. Part of what I think you'd understand from spending time in those communities is a sense of perspective. I get angry about being singled out in my public school days, by teachers, for being caught not saying "under god" in the pledge. I was angry that in basic training on Sunday mornings, I had to chose between going to church, or spending the morning in the latrines scrubbing the shit of the religious troops while they went to worship their gods.

Listening to a baptist minister talk about how they rode out the storm in his church by drinking the water in the holding tanks of the toilets is the sort of thing that will put that into perspective. Listening to him talk about having to move people to the balcony when the lower floor flooded, and then all of them moving to the other side of the balcony when the ceiling on one side collapsed on them, and knowing that without the church they would not have had a gathering place at all, would have drowned in their houses, that sort of thing makes you see that standing in front of the classroom alone saying "under god" so everyone else can hear you isn't as important as the fact that that one congregation had a place to stand without drowning.

Visiting their congregation, and realizing I had no money to put in the collection basket because it was in my other clothes in my tent, and having one of them press their two dollars into my hand so I wouldn't be embarrassed by being empty-handed in their church - accepting that money from someone who'd lost everything, when by comparison I had everything - that also put things into perspective.

I don't know how you can live in that community for any length of time, and not have an appreciation for the role of the church in holding people together. To argue that it should be done away with, when there isn't anything taking its place ... that's like arguing that employers should stop paying for health insurance - because hypothetically you think universal health care is the way to go. Maybe it is the way to go, but right now, today, it doesn't exist. And only a person who has the luxury of knowing they can afford health care without their employer's help would fight to terminate insurance provided through someone's place of employment. For a great many people, doing away with health insurance would be a death sentence. That's what I mean when I say you are speaking from a position of privilege - that you are quite comfortable arguing to do away with something that other people's lives depend on, because you can't see yourself in their shoes, being that close to the edge.

[More Than A Feeling]

92. I don't know if I agree that those same loving people

would not have gotten together for a different purpose if their church didn't exist, but that was extraordinarily well-spoken. I'd recommend your comment by itself if I could.

[kwassa]

93. Thanks for your great note.

You point to the true and great value of a religious community, saying it much better than I could have.

As an outsider, sometimes I am blown away by the idea that a community would get together once a week to listen to a village elder, of sorts, give a lecture about philosophy and ethics - and admission is free, and the community members donate what they can, or are free to donate nothing, and entirely through donations they are willing and able to support the elder and his/her family and pay for their housing and food. Really, that's an amazing thing, and it's not something I see regularly on a community level outside of religion.

Where do you see it anywhere outside a church? The one you describe exemplifies the best in church life. These ministers are not well-paid, either; for many smaller churches it is an avocation more than a vocation. The minister needs a second job, sometimes a first one.

From time to time I try to point out that churches do this on a macro level as well. I, a non-Catholic, used to work for Catholic Charities, the largest private charitable organization in the U.S. who does many great things, despite what I see as their backwards attitudes on some very big issues. Catholic Relief Services worked in many very poor countries, form many, many years, without media publicity. Other major denominations have done as well; the work I did interconnected with Lutheran and Jewish refugee services.

http://www.crs.org/about_us/who_we_are/index.cfm

Who We Are

Catholic Relief Services was founded in 1943 by the Catholic Bishops of the United States. Our mission is to assist the poor and disadvantaged, leveraging the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to alleviate human suffering, promote development of all people, and to foster charity and justice throughout the world.

Working through local offices and an extensive network of partners, CRS operates on five continents and in 99 countries. We aid the poor by first providing direct assistance where needed, then encouraging people to help with their own development. Together, these approaches foster secure, productive, just communities that enable people to realize their potential.

The reason I bolded the part about partners is that there is a huge web of charitable providers who are both religious groups and governmental institutions, and often have complementary and interactive service support for needy individuals and groups. Completely unrelated religious groups work with each other and the government to provide help to whoever needs it. This is good and important work, and NO ONE else does it.

Anyways, a tangent, and thanks for the insightful note.

[BurtWorm]

94. I will only say in response

I do not argue in favor of doing away with religion by fiat. You added that bit of extremism into my position yourself. Nor do I challenge your assertion that these communities are valuable, because I agree that they are valuable just by virtue of their being communities. I only challenge that they are valuable because of *religion.* You still haven't addressed that point directly, and in fact, you just keep underscoring that what's valuable about them is *community.* Now I'm thinking maybe you can't support your argument because your hear isn't in it?

But I did enjoy reading what you wrote. :toast:

[kwassa]

115. These people are a community because of religion

Burtworm:
"Nor do I challenge your assertion that these communities are valuable, because I agree that they are valuable just by virtue of their being communities. I only challenge that they are valuable because of *religion.*"

Challenge away, to your heart's content. They are a community because of their common religious belief, and no other reason. No religion, no community. No community, no help.

How's that?

To put it more succinctly, the community and their religious belief are inseparable, and you are trying to separate them. Can't be done.

[Evoman]

119. We have student science groups at my university. We meet every so often, do activities, etc.

Last summer we donated our time (the Biology group) to clean garbage around the shore line...we spent an afternoon cleaning up needles, condoms, and garbage, so that children would have a place to play, and so animals wouldn't get hurt. We also collected and donated nearly a thousand dollars after the tsunami. And we are a very small group.

Community is important. And I do think that having people get together is important. Ironically enough, I believe that the worst thing about churches, is god. Maybe your right though....maybe we can't have communities, without some irrational belief at its core.

And that makes me extremely sad.

[kwassa]

120. Rationalism is overrated.

the other modes of experience have their rewards.

[BurtWorm]

121. That's a very simplistic reading of the meaning of the church in African American communities.

Those communities exist in New Orleans and elsewhere first and foremost because of the slave trade. What the people in those communites have in common, first and foremost, is descendence from Africans enslaved to European plantation owners in the New World. Why, really, do you think the church became the center of these communities? Was it because so many members believed first and foremost in the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth? Or was it because their Christian overlords could only (just barely) tolerate their congregation in nominally Christian churches? I think it was the latter. Perhaps you disagree?

[kwassa]

85. What good God was in New Orleans.

Their belief in God and faith in their salvation probably helped some endure and not give up in very difficult circumstances while they were waiting forever for the Bush administration to do something. Their faith sustained their hope.

[BurtWorm]

97. Just as Bush's faith-based initiative would have it.

:patriot:

[Evoman]

99. You could argue that belief in god was good in New Orleans, but that

is independant of God himself. God, the being, the energy, the (dare I say it?) love was impotent during that period...as impotent as he has always been. I find it offensive that someone could give thanks or credit to god for letting people survive, while bloated bodies float in the water. Its hard to protect people when you don't exist.

Honestly though, I don't even know if the belief of god does that much. People survive because they have to...what else are they going to do? I would have survived just fine without god. Lack of faith does not kill you.

God does not feed you, god does not shelter you. What the people in New Orleans needed was food, water and shelter. Not more faith.

[noamnety]

101. "God does not feed you, god does not shelter you."

For many people, the church did exactly that.

[Meshuga]

102. The Church is not God

They may be people who congregate because they worship the same God. They see God as good so it motivates them to perform good deeds. But it's not God who shelters or feeds anyone. Like Ba'al Shem Tov, founder of the ultra religious Hasidic Movement in Judaism, said something like, "upon seeing one who is suffering the viewer might be tempted to turn a blind eye and say God will surely help. He must not do this, he must act as a heretic and not depend on a higher being, rather he must say to himself the buck stops here."

If we give credit to God for good deeds performed by members of a church or members of a synagogue then we would have to give credit to God for all of the evil that is done in the name of God as well.

[noamnety]

103. The OP's not about "God" - it's about religion

in other words, it's about what people do as a result of believing in a god.

One of the things they do is build alternative structures of leadership at the grassroots level that exist outside of the government. Because the government does not value those living in poverty, and tends to view them not as humans, but as a liability that brings down property values - external systems that exist separately, particularly in the poorer minority communities, are sometimes vital for their survival.

Anyone with more opportunities and assets than those people probably shouldn't be criticizing them for putting their faith in something other than a secular government that openly disdains them and supports policies of exterminism.

[BurtWorm]

104. How is your position different from the right-wing's on faith-based initiatives?

Not to say that just because it's right-wing it's wrong, necessarily. But the right wing, too, puts no stock in the government's capacity to deliver the services you're talking about, which is why what happened in New Orleans happened. It is, of course, impossible to guess how a Gore or Kerry administration would have addressed Katrina. But do you think if federal emergency programs had been better funded and given higher priority, the government could have been as effective at rescuing the community as you say the churches were? Should we leave such rescue to the churches because they are inherently better able to deal with such situations than the government? That is the right wing position. Is it yours too?

[noamnety]

105. Major differences with the faith based initiatives (and your post)

First, the issue with FEMA wasn't funding. It was a policy of exterminism. When government officials are turning away rescuers with boats and supplies and threatening to arrest them if they enter the area, that's not a funding shortfall or a prioritization problem.

In theory (there's that word again) the government could have evacuated anyone who wanted to be evacuated, if not before the storm, at least once they arrived at the superdome or within a day or two of their arrival. But any poor minority person putting their faith in the government to do that was chumped.

Second, faith based initiatives (at least as I know the term) exist within the government system - so if you think I'm advocating that, you've entirely missed the point of my posts. I'm saying what made the churches effective at distributing aid is that they existed OUTSIDE of government channels. And in fact where I saw the government trying to work with the churches, it was a complete failure.

Furthermore, I haven't said "leave the rescue to the churches." I'm not sure how you got that from my words - I never said others shouldn't be doing rescue or relief work. Maybe you were responding to someone else? Personally, I think we all should be helping those who have less than us, while using less resources for ourselves. In an ideal world (theory), I'd like to see more grassroots groups like Common Ground spring up, that are community based without necessarily being faith based.

But I don't exist in that ideal world, and I'm not interested in tearing down what does work in the absence of any realistic structure that is ready to step in and fill the void.

Finally, thank you so much for implying that Veterans for Peace is essentially promoting right-wing positions. That was truly insightful.

[BurtWorm]

107. Exterminism may indeed have been Bush-Nagel-Blanco's game in NO

None of the above politicians is what I would call a "good government" type. Would you? Is exterminism necessarily a government position, do you think? Or is it the legacy of decades of right-wing control of American and Louisiana government?

The philosophy behind faith-based initiatives is that the government cannot and should not even try to do what their proponents believe churches and other religious organizations do best, which is why they believe that all government can and should do is fund and encourage religious charities, rather than government social programs, to assist the dispossessed.

Now all along this subthread you've expressed hostility to the intentions and capacities of government while praising the intentions and abilities of the churches. I am not saying you're right-wing. I take your word for granted that your'e on the left. But I'm just pointing out this striking similarity between your position and theirs. They, too, shrug their shoulders and say, "We're talking about what's real, not what's theoretical."

I wasn't aware that you were speaking for an organization in your posts. I assumed you were speaking for yourself. Have you been speaking for Veterans for Peace in this thread? It seemed like a personal position.

[noamnety]

109. Hostility and advocacy

I'm openly hostile to the intentions and capacities of our current administration.

I'm openly advocating the need for grass-roots organizations to step in to fill the needs that the government won't or can't fill. Some of those needs have NEVER been filled by our government, I see little reason to act as though a change in administration will make a substantial difference.

Also, I am openly criticizing those who support doing away with the few organizations that do exist that can function as alternate forms of social nets, when the reality is that little else is filling the need. Like I said before, it's like arguing in support of Walmart's right to not provide health care, justifying it by saying it ought to be provided by the government.

Do you agree with the concept of universal health care as an ideal?
Do you agree that in the absence of that being offered, Walmart should provide health insurance for its employees?
If you said yes to both of those, would you characterize that as a right wing position in support of walmart?

As for Veterans for Peace, I am not a spokesperson for them, I am expressing my own views. However, they did work hand-in-hand with the churches along the gulf coast to distribute aid, and they helped arrange our stays in the churches. If you are going to portray cooperation with the churches in providing relief as a right-wing thing to do, you need to be aware of where your arrows are falling.

"We start marching out of Mobile tomorrow, but everything has already changed. The last few weeks have been anxious times for the organizers of this unprecedented event, folks like Vivian Felts and Mobile Vets For Peace leader Paul Robinson and vet activists Stan Goff and Michael McPhearson. For them the last few weeks have been like the slow jerky crawl of the little cart up the steep incline. This morning, when three of us from New York and Baltimore showed up at the warehouse where the Saving Our Selves from the Stone Street Baptist Church has been storing goods for relief distribution, there were maybe a dozen people here. Tonight after a rousing sermon and choir performance, 150 veterans, military family members and supporters tucked into a soul food dinner. The cart is teetering on the top of the first rise now, and tomorrow morning we're off down the first drop on the roller coaster. There's still plenty to be nervous about, but we are already cohering as a unit with a mission to accomplish. The support of local people and their repeated testimony about how little has been done to deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita has put a certain determination into folks' bearing and discussions. We can't wait to get moving into the devastated areas of the coast and on to NOLA.
Dennis O’Neil
Bring Them Home Now! Campaign"

http://www.vetgulfmarch.org/article.php?list=type&type=28

Since I know a couple of the folks mentioned in that quote have written for Freedom Road, I'll link what that organization says about religion: "Are you against religion?

We come from a political tradition that is not religious and sees organized religion primarily as a tool of the existing order, encouraging oppressed people to seek salvation in the hereafter rather than justice today. However, there are obvious exceptions to this -- major trends in the Black church, and the many people of faith who've been fighters for justice and even socialism, and with whom we're honored to work in many struggles. In fact, some Freedom Road members identify as religious and actively participate in congregations. We believe that the role of religion and, more broadly, spirituality is among the important topics that that we need to explore more deeply." http://freedomroad.org/content/view/346/76/lang,en/#religion

[BurtWorm]

110. Who is arguing in favor of doing away with those organizations?

I might have missed that argument in this thread. Who is making it?

[kwassa]

114. You don't know the current structure

Faith-based charities currently and historically have worked in interlocking with charitable government organizations. This is what I referred to in my note on Catholic Charities. I worked in a program helping Vietnamese refugees; for part of it I was an employee of Los Angeles County (on edit: Federal funds are usually disbursed through local government structures), then I moved to a different service part of the same program that was funded and run by Catholic Charities. I know another part was funded and run by Lutheran Family Services and another by Jewish Family Services.

There used to be a bright line against evangelizing or religious requirements in these charitable initiatives which the Bush admin tried to soften, and which is wrong for the separation of church and state. Bush's initiative never got far, by the way.

None of this would have helped in the Katrina situation. This unique disaster required strong leadership from the top, a position Bush completely abdicated before, during, and since. This leadership is necessary due to the scope of the disaster, and the level of coordination required.

[Meshuga]

106. I wasn't replying to the OP

I was replying to the debate Evoman brought up about God actually helping people in need. Nor was I criticizing religion for helping, as I said, "They see God as good so it motivates them to perform good deeds."

I don't think credit should be given to religion in general. Credit should be given to specific independent groups: religious or secular.

However, I do have reservations and criticism for any group that helps with an alterior motive behind the kindness, such as missionary work.

[trotsky]

108. Implicit in kwassa's statement...

is the insinuation that without a belief in god, these people would have given up or would not have tried to help their fellow human beings. Basically the same old hateful bigoted crap that people can't be good or complete without god beliefs.

[noamnety]

111. I didn't read it that way.

People find strength in all different things, some in religion, some in the need to survive for a family member, or even for a pet. That some people find strength in their faith in no way negates that others find it through other means.

I believe people find strength to get through difficult times in all kinds of faith, including religion, and I don't think that's a hateful bigoted thing for me, as an atheist, to say. Personally, I find it more in thinking of how a good friend would imagine I'd act in tough circumstances. Not sure if that makes sense to others, but in my head it does.

Likewise, I didn't read into it that people wouldn't have tried to help fellow human beings without having a belief in god. But an individual, or even a group of individuals, with a good heart is not equivalent to having lines of communication already established and resources at your disposal.

[trotsky]

112. I did.

And so we disagree.

[kwassa]

113. How can you come up with this conclusion?

As a person without faith or religious belief, how do you think you can evaluate what it means to others???????? You can't possibly know what it means to them, or to value it's strength. Faith is essentially a foreign language that you don't speak.

A person's religious faith supports hope, and that hope may prevent them from giving up in difficult circumstances when appears no help is coming. People do die from lack of hope, or the lack of will to live. That is how religion helps a person to survive.

[Evoman]

116. I suppose I could ask you the same thing.

Being a believer, how do you know losing your belief would lower your chances of survival?

We are animals with a strong survival instinct. Many of us would do whatever it took to survive. I am not convinced that religion or belief in god is just all that helpful. If anything, I think it dulls your instincts....you give up because you think their is something waiting for you on "the other side". I'm sure that many of those poor people who died were religious....did they die because their hope died? Why didn't their belief in god save them? You can't eat or drink god.

But then again, maybe your right. Maybe belief does give you hope. Maybe belief does give you that little bit of brain juice you need to survive.

But that is your mind helping you survive. It is not god. God is non-existant. God is impotent.

[kwassa]

117. I'll tell God that next time we talk.

Evoman:
"But that is your mind helping you survive. It is not god. God is non-existant. God is impotent."

[Evoman]

118. While you at it, ask him for the numbers for the lotteryl That extra bit of money

in your pocket sure could help a lot of people. And also ask him if he can introduce me to Shakira.

[boomboom]

79. I agree and disagree

I find hostile the notion that anyone could be ruined in America because of religion or lack thereof. I do not consider us an exclusively Christian nation in the least. I think we have a lot of Christians in this nation, but a lot of other believers and nonbelievers also. And that is America. Founded on those principles...that all would be welcome and respected.

Your point I disagree with is that religion is a hobby. Not to those of us with faith. I know hobbies. Faith, to believers, is of profound importance and truly does shape our daily lives and our world view. Unless you have it, I'm not sure why you think you should have an opinion about it. Probably because of the way it's been perverted in these interesting times...but please believe me...faith is the essence of my being. And I'm not alone. And there are real people of faith. You'd probably even like us.

[More Than A Feeling]

86. I strongly disagree with this quote of yours...

Unless you have it, I'm not sure why you think you should have an opinion about it.

That way lies unaccountability. I'd like to counter with my own quote, from Jacques Derrida: "Religion is responsibility, or it is nothing at all." If you aren't responsible for the fruits of your faith to all who encounter you or it, then who can question anything you believe or say or do, so long as you justify it by your religious beliefs?

[boomboom]

95. I guess I took it another way

My point at the time was that how can someone who's never had faith have an opinion about faith? I'm not really very good at evangalism. I'd like to be, I'm just not yet.

[More Than A Feeling]

96. Well, obviously they can.

A person with who lacks faith in a god can observe the behavior of those who do have such faith, and listen to them talk about their faith, then analyze it using their own judgment, and come up with an idea about it, which we call an opinion.

[BurtWorm]

98. Please don't try to be good at evangelism!

Aren't there other things you could try to be good at? Why do you want to bother people about what you believe they should believe in?

[boomboom]

122. good grief

I just said I wasn't good at it. I would like to be. If I'm bothering people so much, don't read the posts. I never said everyone should believe what I do. I just said what I believe. Isn't that what you're also saying? I get it. You don't, I do. You're right, I'm wrong. Great!

[BurtWorm]

124. I didn't say you were bothering people.

I was being flip, I know, but my point wasn't about you. It was about evangelism, which isn't mere opinionating. Evangelism, as I understand it, has no respect for other people's opinions. It assumes other people are wrong and must be made right. Which is why I pleaded with you--facetiously--to not try to be good at evangelizing.

[boomboom]

123. Why do people who care nothing about religion and theology haunt this forum?

Atagonistic I guess. Why?

[noamnety]

125. It's not that they care "nothing"

That would imply apathy.

Religion affects all of us, including atheists, in this country. It affects policies, taxes, community resources, and disaster relif efforts, sometimes for the common good, sometimes not. Really, the irony of asking - in a subthread about evangelism of all things (or how to better convert atheists) - why an atheist would feel compelled to get involved in the discussion, and then chalking it up to antagonism, is overwhelming.

The atheists are wondering why the evangelists continue to haunt us, and it's surprising that people on both sides can't see the humor in the parallels.

[J Williams]

126. I think everyone should be welcome. That's why ...

I come here as an advocate of a view that I find the most truthful, the most sensible, and the most capable of changing the world for the better.

I think athiests are athiests because they see the absurdity and hypocrisy in what a lot of "religious" people say and do. They should be able to say what they think.

I am a believer, but not in the right-wing beliefs of hypocrites who claim to be Christians or Jews or Muslims. I am a believer in the God who is not a man, nor a son of man, but is the Supreme Consciousness and the eternal omnipresent Light-Energy-Source of our existence.

http://realprophecyunveiled.netfirms.com

[cosmik debris]

88. That's a real laugh!

"I find hostile the notion that anyone could be ruined in America because of religion or lack thereof."

You haven't been around long enough to hear all the horror stories from atheists who have been abused by the "god-fearing" followers of Jesus.

[BurtWorm]

90. Read about Tom Paine.

He wasn't an atheist, though he was called one (and worse). He's a prime example of a great man ruined because of fear of freethought.

[eridani]

82. Some do their spirituality and ethics through a religious filter--

--others don't. The critical issue for me is whether your ethical standards apply to everybody, or just to your in-group. There are religious and non-religious people on both sides of that particular divide.

[J Williams]

87. Appropriate to this discussion...

Quote:

Benjamin Franklin, a founding father and a genius, became a Deist after educating himself and turning far away from his rigid and oppressive Calvinist Protestant Christian upbringing, and he wrote an essay on "Toleration" in which he stated: "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. The Puritans found it wrong in the Bishops (of the Church of England), but fell into the same practice themselves in New England (in America)."

I think Franklin was speaking not only of Puritanism, but also of Calvinism and other "conservative" Protestant Christian sects that were much like some of those on the "Christian Right" today. They operate from a self-serving patriarchal mind set. A typical characteristic is theocratic patriarchal rule and rigid, arrogant belief in a literal but very specific, selective and particular interpretation of the Bible. It is based on selected passages in scriptures which seem to support their rigid doctrine and creed, while it ignores scriptures that do not. It enables men to play god, while they really ignore and betray God.

In my view, it is much like the false form of Islam practiced by misguided, rigidly conservative Muslim sects. Its practices, attitudes, traditions and values are extremely prudish, strict, limiting, inhibiting, repressive, and even oppressive and persecutive. They are not based on real knowledge and love of God, but on the patriarchal dictates of men who want to play ruler, god and judge, and claim they are doing it in the name of God.

Unquote

The above was quoted from a web page titled What are Real Spiritual Values?

http://realprophecyunveiled.netfirms.com/Web_Site_Curre/What_Are_Realx.html

The web site is: http://realprophecyunveiled.netfirms.com