By Vorjack
As the country continues to digest the results of the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, we can expect a lot of dialogue about the rapid growth of the unreligious. Newsweek’s recent article, “The End of Christian America,” is a good example. Despite its overblown title, it’s a reasonably balanced article. The author, Jon Meacham, picks up on the new use of an old phrase to explain the findings:
There it was, an old term with new urgency: post-Christian. This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory. To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population.
There’s some good stuff in the article, and I’ll let folks pick it over in the comments. What I want to ask is this:
What happens to the so-called New Atheist movement now?
I think that the growing online atheist movement has been driven largely by backlash and anger. Quite a few of us are ex-evangelicals who fled from the church. Others of us would have happily remained within liberal religion had not conservative Christianity continued to intrude. Our overriding goals have always been to reduce the influence of religion — and particularly Conservative Evangelical Christianity — over the schools, the labs and the government.
Let’s be clear — the Religious Right isn’t going to disappear. In fact, it may become even more entrenched as its minority status gets driven home. But if articles like this are right, then their influence over politics and culture may be waning — and this may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. As folks like Christine Wicker point out, much of the Religious Right’s influence comes from effective PR that convinces people that they are influential to a degree that’s out of proportion with their numbers. They’re influential because we all believe they’re influential. If we start telling ourselves that they’re not influential…
So what will happen if it becomes clear that the coalition of the Religious Right has disintegrated? If the conservative evangelicals turn their focus inward and leave politics, what will we do? Will atheists likewise turn inwards? Will Richard Dawkins go back to the lab? What would you do if you no longer had to worry about the prayer in school issue or the ID movement?
“What would you do if you no longer had to worry about the prayer in school issue or the ID movement?”
Well I suppose the glib answer is I would be happy. I don’t fundementally have a problem with people believing in all sorts of mumbo-jumbo but I do have a problem when that is imposed on others and it’s demanded and expected that respect is given for these ideas.
Once we get to the same level or treatment for current main stream relgions as to that of say Norse mythology then we will be in a much better place.
I think, as in Europe, this will be a long, slow process. Since the Enlightenment, Christianity has been on the wane in Western Europe and now, Eastern Europe is following the same path.
I would say that, within 25 years, religion as a political influence will be marginal, inconsequential.
Sort of a tangent, but perhaps interesting to some.
Christian Smith published this book a few years back, and I found it fascinating.
In short, he polled a large chunk of American Evangelicals and found that many who self-identify as Evangelical are actually opposed to many of the religious right’s political views.
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-America-What-Evangelicals-Really/dp/0520234707/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239806094&sr=8-1
So, sort of to the question, What would you do if you no longer had to worry about the prayer in school issue or the ID movement?
I don’t think you’ll really have to wait for America to become secularized for that to happen. The religious right is going to die off long before religion does — at least in my opinion.
We’ll continue to have (fundamentalist) islam to focus our righteous anger towards. Especially in Europe, where islam is on the rise and politicians pander to it in the name of ‘tolerance’. Funny how for many muslims tolerance is a one-way street.
Ha! For all you naysayers about Texas… we are down to 20% baptist (from 32%) and down in the other two areas as well!!!!
GO Texas!!!! Woooo hoooooo!
(This is for those people who think we’re a bunch of stupid yocals who talk with ridiculous hick accents and have no art, culture, or science here.)
I think it’s just the next step in the chain of prehistoric-religions -> polytheism -> monotheism -> atheism.
So I guess I would just go on minding my own business ;)
@Adamus:
I happen to live in the middle of Europe, and I can’t say that we’re on the verge of being overrun by muslims. True, there are many of them (but compared to what? Israel? Saudi Arabia?), but most are liberal in their religious views. And the wingnuts?! Well, you have ‘em in every religion, anywhere. As long as the host country remains adequately vigilant, a few idiots are not going to erect the next caliphate in Europe.
And for the ‘tolerance’, what’s wrong about that? It’s a basic principle of the constitutional state that every subject has to be treated with tolerance and no walls of prejudice are built towards people, especially not based on gender, age, wealth, religion, disability, and so on.
Besides, you can bet your atheistic a** that many politicians (and parts of the media) are trying to cash in on the prejudices of the electorate. You can quite often hear populist outcries of “disproportionate priviliges” for all sorts of immigrants, asylum seeker, etc.
So I guess we have to choices: War on Islam (Epic Fail, IMHO), or just waiting for them to come to their senses and see the errors of their ways, as we have seen and still see those of our own. Since Christianity had a headstart of around 600 years, we might have to wait a few seconds for that to happen… ;)
If the separation between church and state were clearly established, and the schools taught rational thinking, and any believer who asked critical questions would be answered instead of abused, then I would feed on milk and honey and cavort like the Greeks of old.
But sense I know I won’t live to see the glorious secular victory, I can only try and prepare the next generation.
This gives me so much hope. I was in high school in a Chicago public school when Illinois decided to require a moment of “silent contemplation” (read: prayer) at the beginning of every school day, and that just made me feel like every right I had was being trampled on. The prospect of maybe, one day, having my rights not be less important than others’ beliefs makes me want to jump for joy. I know it won’t be instantaneous, and it may be a two-steps-forward-one-step-back kind of thing, but progress can still be made.
While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called “the garden of the church” from “the wilderness of the world.” As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America’s unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience. At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right’s notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.
So very well said.
Hi Vorjack! Good to see your articles.
Excellent point to remember when xians prattle on about how we have a website to protest “nothing”, and a website about “what you don’t believe in anyway, after all, I don’t have a website protesting Santa Claus, blah blah blah”.
Another point for xians who blather “have you ever read the bible?”, and “you don’t know”, and “try christianity”.
The apostrophe posse is hauling you in now, for inappropriate display of apostrophes. It’s such a christian thing to do! You’ll (you will) be out again in no time, to write more of your thoughtful articles.
Upon reading it, I’m getting mixed feelings.
The following statement is not intended to be statistically accurate, being subjective in nature:
“Oh, boy, that seems like a small change for 18 years.”
-The Pessimist
Baptists are a smaller proportion of the population, but have increased their numbers. Mormons “hold their own proportionally”. Evangelicals and born-agains – to me the most dangerous and oppressive – went from one-fifth of a million to 8 million.
I’ll take any good news about the decline of christianity’s death-grip on the control of people outside its beliefs. Then I’ll go off and worry about evangelicals and overpopulation.
The Newsweek article says that this is what “troubles” R. Albert Mohler:
Get this: Mohler thinks that is a bad thing!
I’ll read the rest of the article after I pick my jaw up off the floor.
In that case, religion is better lost and dead. To use the title of a short story by Theodore Sturgeon, religion is “The World Well Lost”.
Fundamentalism/RR will likely go dormant for a few decades, until some new thing provides a spark for it to rise up. This has sort of happened before. Willian Jennings Bryan, perennial failed presidential candidate, would deserve the label fundamentalist even though he was politically important before that word was coined. After his political career ended and after the Scopes trial, fundamentalism went politically dormant until the rise of the RR. A think it’s likely that something similar could happen in the future; it’s just that there’s no particular reason why the future politically active fundamentalists could not be on the left.
Sam Harris once paraphrased an interviewer’s question by saying something to this effect: “You mean, in an important sense, writing these books and having these debates is a colossal waste of time? Yes, it is.” Andrew Sullivan says of the gay movement that its ultimate goal should be (after accomplishing everything else) to cease to exist. It’s a great sentiment, and I would *love* to not have to worry about this silly issue and be able to spend time on other things. Unfortunately (and here’s my last quote) as Hitchens quotes Camus, the rats are always waiting to send their diseased brothers up from the sewers to die on the streets of a happy city. The best we can do is beat back faith as a mode of politics and defend secular government. Even in so-called secular Europe religion hasn’t gone away, and in the long run Europe may just be in a theistic ebb right now. Religion won’t leave humans, just like an unhealthy taste for sugary and fatty foods, short of profound genetic engineering. That’s why atheism is more importantly a political problem, not a philosophical one.
[i]So what will happen if it becomes clear that the coalition of the Religious Right has disintegrated? … What would you do if you no longer had to worry about the prayer in school issue or the ID movement?[/i]
Hmmm … how to phrase this … I think that taking Atheism’s cause as solely being one of anti-christianity or anti-religion is doing it a disservice. Yes it is important to be sure to maintain secularism in government, but there is plenty to support rather than just a few things to defend. For instance, we could be taking on more humanitarian issues, both domestically and globally. (Thanks to Daniel for posting Charity:Water) And yes, with a decline in the RR’s numbers we may see the return of logic and science to the political sphere, but there are more than just religious pressures that effect scientific interpretations. Sans x-ians, there will still be plenty of global warming deniers.
I for one foresee there being plenty to do if the RR disintegrated.
@ RodneyAnonymous: Great Quote!
I think that there is reason to believe that a certian segment of conservative Christianity is growing.
I agree that the number of athiests is growing as well.
What would it do for dialogs between the two groups if we all understood these facts?
It could be that we spent less time trying to establish ourselves as the victims of those on the other side.
It could be that we would have more respect for each other since we knew that both our houses are growing.
It could be a good thing indeed.
I just read the Newsweek article and here is something I didn’t get:
“According to the American Religious Identification Survey that got Mohler’s attention, the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent.”
“A third of Americans say they are born again…”
Shouldn’t those two statistics match? Unless I missed something, of course.
I doubt Christians will, in my lifetime, turn inward. And we will probably still have Muslims for 100 years at least.
But when they all give up on their public agenda, so will I.
I doubt Christians will, in my lifetime, turn inward. And we will probably still have Muslims for 100 years at least.
But when they all give up on their public agenda, so will I.
I posted my thoughts on this earlier, but I will restate it here.
I am an American first and foremost. I will be among the first to say that our education system is a failure, that the way we treat sick people is a disgrace, and that there are many, many, many things fundamentally wrong with the way we do business. However, I am still an American and I do still love my country, my home.
One of the principles of this nation, one of the things that makes it what it is, is the Separation of Church and State. If this was not a part of the body of laws governing our nation, then I would have very little opinion on it. If the USA was, in fact and in writing, a Christian Nation, then I would accept that.
America is not. It was not founded as such, and it should not become such.
If the religious movement within America, those trying to force Creationism and prayer in schools, and make the US a GGG (God Guided Government)… if they were NOT doing these things, then I doubt I would be here right now. While the internet is famous for anonymity, I freely express what I am these days to any who meet me, and I speak out against the ills and wrongs of religion.
And when the Churches goes back to being just a Sunday only thing, with fund raisers and charity work… and does not make any attempt to force me to live my life a certain way… then I will smile and put down my keyboard.
ID, prayer in schools. and other political hot topic issues strike me as transitory. The larger issue is how do we advance a coherent philosophy that allows for personal freedom but also provides a social context for moral behavior and a meaningful life that can be embraced by both the religious and non-religious. Religion, and the conflicts between religious groups, isn’t going to go away anytime soon.
Of course, I would apply those things to all countries.
@Adamus:
Of course, as always… *rolleyes* Two f*cking seconds after I hit the “submit”-button, I realized that you apparently also live in Europe. So I have to apologize in advance should my comment sound patronizing to you. That was in no way my intention.
On the other hand, I’m rather confused about your post. Is the situation that much different where you live?! Okay, there was the tragedy with Theo van Gogh, but as sad as it is, that does not make most European muslims dangerous. We have honour killings here, the perpetrators are punished according to the law, and life goes on for the rest of society.
(On another sidenote: I just again realized how little I know what’s going on in different countries. And I am among peers considered to be relatively well-informed. I guess it takes so much time to find out what’s wrong in one’s own country that there is hardly any time left to deal with the internal and international affairs of the other 200+ nations on this planet :(
The apostrophe is my fault. As the editor, I should have caught that. It’s fixed now.
[i] And for the ‘tolerance’, what’s wrong about that? It’s a basic principle of the constitutional state that every subject has to be treated with tolerance and no walls of prejudice are built towards people, especially not based on gender, age, wealth, religion, disability, and so on. [/i]
I live in the States so I’m very un-aware of how much coverage the lack of woman’s rights as well as the absurditites of honor killings and female “circumcision” gets in Europe, but here there is 0.
If there is routine coverage in Europe and it properly gets attributed to Muslim culture then, first and foremost I commend the news agencies and secondly go ahead and ignore me.
Tolerance is a good thing and should be strived for. But cultural relativity only goes so far. There are basic human rights in question at the foundation of every Muslim country. I still feel, from my own experience with news, that criticising Islam is still very much a taboo. And while the moderates in Europe might be very progressive, until criticism of things like womens right’s in Muslim culture becomes routine and accurate in the media (which due to the political correctness of not offending the moderates is typically not the case) we’ll never really know how “moderate” the moderates are.
In Harris’ book “The End of Faith” one of his biggest arguements was that the moderates are responsible for the exposure and influence of the extremists. This is because while they don’t agree with the fundies, they still aren’t ok with anyone challenging or criticising the beliefs at the core of their religion and thus it remains taboo for a 6 O’Clock news channel to run a story specifically indicting Islam in, say Syria, as the culprit for the specific criminal acts against woman.
Once we can achieve broad spectrum criticism of all cultures and religions (i.e. its not ok to kill your daughter because she was raped BECAUSE YOUR CHERISHED BELIEFS ARE WRONG and we’re not going to sit idly until you make some wholescale changes) we’ll really be able to tell who is moderate and who sides with the more extreme and then we can work towards tolerance.
In the Netherlands (my country) I suppose the threat of islam depends on where you stand and how you act. If you’re a good little citizen and keep your mouth shut, you’ll be fine. But if you’re vocal in any way about, for example, oppression of females in muslim communities in the country, the inappropriateness of excessive religious garb such as the burka in Dutch public society, or any other facet of islam that you may disagree with, you should fear for your physical safety.
The fact that genuine criticism is not met with argumentation but with shrieking accusations of bigotry and threats of physical violence means something is severely wrong with our country. The government’s inability to handle these issues, pussyfooting around it in fear of breaching their own overly sensitive standards of political correctness, leaves the field wide open for populists like Geert Wilders.
I for one welcome his voice in the public debate, for it allows vital issues currently active in our society that have resided in the dusty shadows of political ignorance for too long, to finally be discussed openly. the overwhelmingly violent and threatening reaction from the islamic side of the debate is ample evidence of their medieval mindset and utter lack of counterargument.
I wish I could say a minority of muslims is ruining it for the majority, but I don’t see that so-called moderate majority anywhere. All I see is a growing number of muslims with ever-increasing political clout, and a government lacking the spine and the will to protect their citizens from the oppression of the loudest voice.
Yes, in a free country every religion should have a place. But no religion should abuse those freedoms to censor their critics.
Mohler thinks that is a bad thing!
It stems from even liberal Christianity’s utterly paralyzing fear of heteronomy. The notion that there is no ultimate authority is the most subversive possible to a monotheist. (Tillich touched on this quite a bit, made it explicit.)
I think you might be misreading him, or I’m misreading you.
I don’t get the impression that he’s concerned about tolerance increasing.
My sense is that he’s concerned about the shift in narrative, as he puts it, from one in which there is a clear authority from which to derive morality to a pluralistic (is there a better word?) understanding.
My jaw already dropped downstairs when I read this:
Judeo-Christian consensus? In the last millenium? Where has this guy been in the last 1000 years?
My jaw still hasn’t recovered. That description that so “troubles” Mohler sounds to me like something so good that John Lennon would have put it in “Imagine” if he could have fit it in the meter. As it is, his words just about said that very thing.
While we’re quoting, this one gives me hope…
“Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor — but they have few followers now.” — Arthur C. Clarke
Way to go, Texas. Perhaps then part of your atheist task can be to squelch all this ridiculous secession talk. Of course that would mean going up against Chuck Norris.
(btw … I have never been to Texas, but know enough Texans to say that you aren’t yokels and that you have some significant centers for Art and Music, and Science … I mean … hello, Nasa.)
My favorite “Texas” story took place in Alaska. In the hangar in which I was working, someone approached the flight instructor (Hi, Jim! I miss you!) about some conservative running for some office, pushing for a vote for this guy, because “he’s from Texas, he’s against gay rights and for prayer in schools”.
The flight instructor said, clearly and very loudly, “Well, as a Texan whose son is gay and who doesn’t go to church, I probably won’t vote for [whatsisname].”
Being no native speaker, I can see myself running out of vocabulary on this rather challenging topic before even actually trying to answer your comment. I’ll try my best, if there are any misunderstandings on either side, please feel invited to point them out to help things clarify.
Okay, women’s rights are not that much of an issue where I live, but I must admit that, since Europe spans over dozens of countries, that there are places here where this is certainly, and sadly so, still a huge issue, which is rarely addressed. In terms of honour killings, since they happen maybe five to ten times per year, there is a lot of critical coverage, as well as the inevitable voyeuristic one. Female circumcision is also addressed, although on a lower frequency, and usually within a certain environment (i.e. certain types of tv programs that deal with feminist and/or political issues on an investigative and objective level). Again, I’m only speaking for Germany, I know of a few other countries where the situation is comparable, but I know next to nothing about the situation in, let’s say, Romania or Kazakhstan.
Apparently, I was not concise enough when I wrote about tolerance. Let me give you a (hopefully correct) translation of the third article of the German Grundgesetz (i.e. our constitution):
“Nobody is to be privileged or penalised due to their gender, ancestry, race, spoken language, home country and origin, faith, religious or political ideas, or disablities.”
That is aimed primarily at the gouvernment bodies, but it applies to every company as well as every single citizen. And it applies to every religious or political nutjob out there as well. Because there is another, namely the most inmportant article of the Grundgesetz:
“The dignity of any person is indefeasible.”
Therefore, you can execute your freedom of religion. But as soon as your religious freedom touches the dignity of another person (e.g. physical inviolability), you can take your religious beliefs and stick them to where the sun don’t shine. So, in theory there is no place for cultural relativity. You live here, you adhere to our rules, and that’s that. Reality sometimes lags a little behind, but hey, nothing is perfect… ;)
Totally agree, but atheism is most prevalent in the Western World, where, perchance, xtianity is the most prevalent religious movement. So it’s rather natural that we attack the enemy we know best. And when we’ve finished it off, Islam is next, then the Jewish Religion (saying that in Germany would give me shocked looks at least, and some time in jail at worst. We are hyper-sensible with every topic that has the magic ‘Y’-word in it), then Hinduism and Buddhism (we can take those two together, because at that point we’ll be already outnumbering them), and then the rest. Just kidding… ;-)
Very interesting argument. So interesting, actually, that I will have to ponder on it for a while to properly assess it’s validity. Please stay tuned.
I like the idea, but I am afraid that it is a bit idealistic, as it implies that a huge proportion of the global population is able and willing to think critically. Sadly, we have ample evidence to the contrary. But I must admit that my own utopia, in which all people realize, that they are the same, regardless of race, gender, religion, and so on, is at least equally unrealistic. ;)
But what if those who wanted that moment of silence had it taken away? Wouldn’t you be trampling on their rights?
Could someone please elucidate the issue of “inappropriate display of apostrophes”?! I have a strong feeling of some sort of ‘in joke’ (is that the correct expression for any joke than is only understandable to people within a specific group?) going on.
Pleeeeaaaase, don’t let my die clueless.
it’s just that there’s no particular reason why the future politically active fundamentalists could not be on the left.
There are plenty of fundamentalists on the left. They just don’t call themselves by that name and have different “fundamentals” from those on the right.
Lots of people forget this, and it’s lots of fun to remind them. For the vast majority of American political history, at least, piety and religion was a tool of the political left. It is only in the last forty years or so that there was a significant religious right-wing movement to speak of.
I should have been more clear. I was referring to news coverage of the Muslim world in general meaning criticism of Muslim practices in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia etc.
I find that very lacking (as is the lack of coverage or public outrage over Dafur).
And when these things are pushed to the forefront and openly criticised for being the barbaric practices that they are you’ll have a much better idea of who is really moderate.
Those that aren’t tolerant of criticism may find themselves disgusted that they are hearing/seeing such “hatred” of their religious/cultural practices and lash out when previously they were thought to be harmless moderates.
I agree that Islam is on the back burner for the Western World, as we still have to overcome this taboo with Christianity. And the overall goal of equal criticism across the board is very idealistic. But its not idealistic to want the President to openly chastise any of the aformentioned countries for their treatment of women. Sadly that won’t happen though because everything has to be politically correct, which prevents open criticism of religion because peoples feelings get hurt.
Okay, I guess we’re starting a whole new discussion here.
The lack of criticism has many reasons. First, most people who live in any country are/want to be oblivious towards what happens in the rest of the world. The rest, who is interested, splits up in two groups: those who are at least generally interested in the things that affect themselves (i.e. what’s going on within their country or what is done in it’s name), and those who want a wider perspective. The former group is satisfied by the media (who are in for the profit), while the second is virtually left on their own. Teh Internets have improved the situation, but it still is difficult, and time consuming, to find out what’s going on out there. And as the topics usually are quite complex, it takes some serious research, knowledge, and dedication to become an amateur expert on only a handful of issues.
Another reason for the lack of criticism is the (I don’t know how to put it that it makes at least just a little sense) lack of justification for criticism. There is no lack of that, but still, if anyone in the western world publicly criticises Iran for threatening Israel, or North Korea for their attempt to develop nuclear weapons, or China for their “exemplary” human rights policy, the answer is almost always some variation of “Screw you, that’s none of your business”. So instead of actual criticism, you get some ritualized form of slack criticism followed by harsh rejection. There is no dialogue going on.
One last point would be the lack of competence. There is only a limited number of experts on foreign issues, and only a limited number of politicians, celebrities, people from the media, that are willing to listen to them and to act accordingly. Besides, what would change in, let’s say Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or Pakistan, if the news reports in America or Great Britain were full of critical reports on the situation in said countries. I’m afraid the answer would be “Next to nothing”. For criticism to work, it requires receivers that are actually willing to listen, to understand, and to act accordingly.
And for bringing the less moderate followers of any religion to the daylight, I am not entirely convinced that it can be done through criticism as well. Because the lashing out, as you put it, is at least as much dependant on traits like general ability to give and receive criticism, anger management, education, and so on. You can make any person who sucks in these areas go mad, regardless of what topic that they hold dear you are criticising.
Think of election campaigns, animal rights activists, even some of your co-workers. Some people just can’t take any criticism, but that does not necessarily make them fundamentalist, extremist, or something-ist.
Yes and no. Yes, he’s really concerned about “the shift in narrative, as he puts it, from one in which there is a clear authority from which to derive morality to a pluralistic (is there a better word?) understanding.” This is the shift from Theonomy (law of God) to Heteronomy (law of/by others). No, because diversity of viewpoint is precisely what threatens the theonomic conception, and so it is legitimate to say that he is concerned about tolerance increasing.
True.
My point, though, was that the term “fundamentalist” accurately describes extreme points of view on both sides.
In other words, the only difference I see between the two is that each side has different sets of fundamentals (ideas or concepts that are accepted as assumptions and non-negotiable).
Since I’m an apostrophe sheriff in general (gads, I hate misuse), I’ll chime in. It’s = it is. Its = possessive.
The one that gets (not get’s) me the most, though, is the use of ‘ to make a plural noun. Never, ever, ever should an apostrophe be part of a plural noun! NYT had an article which used one in an abbreviation recently (G.I.’s maybe?), and I was sad.
To the point (finally), people tend to insert apostrophes in many, many unnecessary (and, IMO, annoying) places.
You’re right about that. Every true believer needs his or her axioms.
It could be that we would have more respect for each other since we knew that both our houses are growing.
I agree, which is why the name-calling gets so old to me.
Not all religious people are devoid of reason and therefore teh stupidz.
And not all atheists are hell-bent on destroying religion and religious people.
(note that I’m using stereotypes for both sides before you stone me, please :P ).
I read and post here for two main reasons:
1) Because I want to understand people who think very differently than I do.
2) Because I hope to demonstrate that not every religious person is an ignorant zealot.
All for the meager hope of building understanding between two diverse groups of people who inhabit the same planet, continents, nations, and cities.
You think it’s possible for a “nonbeliever” to have such axiom?
And by that I do mean axioms that are assumed before being well thought out.
Yes, I do. In fact, my first time on this board was fairly consumed with an argument about that. I tend to think that underlying a position of Atheism is an implicit empiricism, probably nominalism too (though that one I can see being more debatable; the existence of universals is sticky enough without bring God into it).
Only if you assume that theonomy is inherently intolerant, right? And you would also assume that he accepts that assumption, right?
Oh, and I should say that from reading vorjack’s other writing, that’s gotta be a typo. Ain’t no way he’d do that on purpose. :)
Sorry, I was just plainly stupid. I didn’t get the “Despite it’s overblown title” the first time. I thought it had something to do with writing “it is” instead of “it’s”. The confusion of “it’s” and “its” never entered my mind. The only thing that excuses this grave mistake on my side is the fact that I was already tired as hell when I wrote it…
Theonomy is defined in part as intolerance of other claims to authority. Albie Mohler is pretty famous, and has made his personal feelings on the matter pretty clear. So, yes, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that he is intolerant, and that his intolerance is derived directly from his theonomous outlook.
But, isn’t it possible to believe in one authority exclusively without being intolerant of other people?
So, wouldn’t it be possible that he believes in God et al but still values a harmonious, diverse society?
He might not, but I think it would be possible.
Autonomy probably drives him even more crazy. Those kinds of people don’t work so well as faithful tools, converts and proselytizers.
Not all Christians label themselves as “Christians” and not all Christians label themselves as “born again.”
On the other hand, people will put down they are “Christian” even when they don’t go to church or think much about Christian theology.
Usually only the dedicated label themselves as “born again.”
It was taken away. It was ruled unconstitutional. People who want to pray in school are allowed to, they always had that right, it just never infringed on everyone else’s taxpayer-funded class time before the law was enstated.
Nothing, at all, stops a child from coming to class early or to set up their own prayer circles with other classmates that do not intrude upon the hours that you’re supposed to be in class, learning.
Why?
Jim, would you have any other reason to “turn inward” besides that “everyone else is doing it?”
That’s like saying, “i’ll keep buying this product because the advertisement says it’s the best there is. But if they stop running ads for it, then i’ll move on.”
Yeah, I never understood this part either. If a person believes a thing, and think that that belief has implications for how they should act, why on Earth would anyone expect them not to try to act that way?
For me, it’s because I don’t want to become what I hate about Christians. My problem with them is how they try to force me to live my life in a way that, to me, seems absolutely ignorant and fearful of the monsters in the closet.
However, regardless of how I view their religion, I think that they should come to terms with it on their own, if they ever do. If I were to keep pushing forward, shoving my views down their throat, then in my eyes I would be as bad as they.
I will still claim to be what I am, and defend that to those who attack my atheism. However, I wont try to destroy their belief systems.
Yeah, I never understood this part either. If a person believes a thing, and think that that belief has implications for how they should act, why on Earth would anyone expect them not to try to act that way?
Here’s my thing: the demands of those beliefs are asymmetrical. That is, in particular, nothing about Atheism demands Atheists to be evangelical about their Atheism; on the other hand, to be a Christian is by dint of the rules of being a Christian necessary to evangelize. It’s written into the framework of what it means to be a Christian.
Very well said.
There is, however, a small but growing minority in Evangelicalism that is eschewing everything to do with what evangelism used to be in favor of pursuing social justice. It’s rooted in two theological developments 1) universalist-type soteriologies and 2) a more holistic understanding of Jesus’ preaching about the kingdom of God.
To make it absurdly short, it would claim that evangelism entirely consists of loving God and neighbor.
However, regardless of how I view their religion, I think that they should come to terms with it on their own, if they ever do. If I were to keep pushing forward, shoving my views down their throat, then in my eyes I would be as bad as they.
I will still claim to be what I am, and defend that to those who attack my atheism. However, I wont try to destroy their belief systems.
I kinda feel the same way, but from the other side of the debate.
I rarely talk about my faith unless 1) I’m directly asked or 2) it’s on a blog like this to “defend” my faith (for lack of a better way of putting it).
Oh, and by “monsters in the closet”, I don’t mean gay people. ;)
Here’s my thing: the demands of those beliefs are asymmetrical. That is, in particular, nothing about Atheism demands Atheists to be evangelical about their Atheism; on the other hand, to be a Christian is by dint of the rules of being a Christian necessary to evangelize. It’s written into the framework of what it means to be a Christian.
So the expectation (and relevant objections) to the use of political, social, and physical force to advance Christianity at the cost of other belief structures and systems are pretty much built into the situation. Now, we can argue that the best way to evangelize is to present arguments in the public forum, and eschew force, but that is merely due to our implicit endorsement of a moral and political belief system separate and alien to the history and structure of Christianity, courtesy of the Enlightenment.
I am both an atheist and anti-religious.
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
My first reaction when I read your comment was that I was shocked. I had no clue that the situation in a neighbouring country was that bad.
My first idea was that maybe it had something to do with the Netherlands being known for their very liberal attitude, but I’ve never been there, so I cannot judge on this assumption.
As for the populist movements and people like Geert Wilders and the late Pim Fortuyn, I don’t see them as much as a threat than more of a political seismometers that pick up and amplify already existing issues in any pluralistic society. We’ve done a little research on this topic, and the conclusions we drew were that populist movements are rarely harmful, and almost always relatively short-lived. They perish as soon as mainstream political parties incorporate some of the populists demands into their own agendas in order to create more votes for themselves at the next elections. They are a force of change, not necessarily for the better, but like evolution, politics (in any democracy) do not have a final aim. They are rather marked by constant adaptation to external influences and internal demands.
If that is true, and I have at the moment no reason to doubt it, then there truly is something rotten in the state of The Netherlands. Is there no jurisdiction referring to hate-mongering, threatening people, supressing individual freedom? If a hypothetical muslim would publicly threaten a critic’s physical inviolability, he would find himself facing criminal charges, with a high probability to get thrown out of the country, unless he has German citizenship. As long as you can provide sufficient evidence (e.g. witnesses), any person that threatens another will be charged with Bedrohung (Threatening) and faces a hefty fine or jailtime up to one year. You might even face accusation of Volksverhetzung (agitation of the people), which will send you to jail for three months up to five years.
Of course, there will always be opportunities where fundamentalists will be able to socially penalise you. But there is no law against turning the table on them and returning the favour (as long as you don’t break any laws, that is).
Finally, I also would like to thank you for your perspective and for widening my horizon a little more.
I came for the fundie bashing, but I stayed for the rational nurturing ;)
Usually only the dedicated label themselves as “born again.”
Only dedicated Evangelical Christians label themselves born again.
I personally know hundreds of Christians (literally) who are very devout but want nothing to do with that term (Presbyterian Church USA, Catholic, for example).
“I will still claim to be what I am, and defend that to those who attack my atheism. However, I wont try to destroy their belief systems.
I kinda feel the same way, but from the other side of the debate.
I rarely talk about my faith unless 1) I’m directly asked or 2) it’s on a blog like this to “defend” my faith (for lack of a better way of putting it).”
This is an interesting topic.
Personally, I would like to live in a society where religious belief is largely discredited and marginalized. (This is one of the reasons I miss living in Europe)
That being said, I strongly (very strongly) believe that people have the right to believe what they want so long as it doesn’t hurt others or impose on the beliefs of others.
So I would never seeks to “destroy” religion in any oppressive way. (support laws supressing religious thought etc..) I do hope that living my life as openly atheist, and debating issues around belief/non -belief will do a small part to help influence a societal change away from religion.
And when the Churches goes back to being just a Sunday only thing, with fund raisers and charity work… and does not make any attempt to force me to live my life a certain way… then I will smile and put down my keyboard.
So, as long as Christians keep quiet and don’t express their political views, you’re okay with them?
How do you mesh that with your sense of being an American in which every single citizen has the right to free speech and to contribute to government?
I think he means to say that he does not want religious doctrine dictating the laws.
Constitutionally, the separation of church and state is foremost.
Our wishes to influence legislation to support our individual religious beliefs seems like it ignores the spirit of the constitution. Of course, the constitution only becomes an issue to the conservative movement when it so blatantly disagrees with their views.
My thoughts exactly. However, the are going to put up one hell of a fight, and use every sly tactic to justify their existence…oh wait they already are!!!
I think he means to say that he does not want religious doctrine dictating the laws.
Perhaps, but that’s not what he said.
Constitutionally, the separation of church and state is foremost.
I agree. And that separation means that the government will not establish or endorse any religion over another.
It does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that churches or their members are mandated by law to stay out of politics.
Here’s my concern:
I’m a religious person. My religious views intersect with my political views on a lot of issues.
When I read posts like the above, I get the impression that this person thinks I am not entitled to voice that opinion publicly because such a statement would inevitably contain at least some religious qualities.
From my perspective, that’s fundamentally at odds with the Constitution, Freedom of Speach, and the Separation of Church and State.
My previous posts had been geared towards what Adamus has said here. You gave me a lot to think about when discussing what is idealistic or not. Though I still think the time is rapidly approaching for some proaction on this subject.
Because the sooner it becomes normal to publicly subject those who openly invoke the word of god to, rational criticism (particularly dealing with things like woman’s rights or gay marriage) the better.
If we don’t start breaking down taboos, how can we ever hope to overcome them when our lives are on the line.
I believe France is now over 50% muslim, can anyone verify this? A simple cartoon depicting Mohammad could send the country into revolution.
This is why I feel its time for our leaders to be proactive about criticizing forgein (specifically Muslim) countries who hold still hold on to thousand year old barbaric practices. The longer we wait the stronger they grow in their beliefs and the harder it will be to co-exist in the future.
I think France is safe!
“I get the impression that this person thinks I am not entitled to voice that opinion publicly because such a statement would inevitably contain at least some religious qualities.”
That is, in fact, partly true. If you want to champion your views, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else, whereas religions have historically played by different rules. You can champion whatever message you want, but not under a religious banner. If an idea can’t be sustained on grounds other than religious ones — for instance, possibly opposition to gay marriage — then it can’t be involved in American politics. The idea of “separation of church and state” is not only that the state cannot endorse any religions, but that religions play no part in the government of the state. It doesn’t matter what the source of your opinions are, but there are rules about how they can be presented.
Note that this is how I think things should be, not how they are. They are kind of a mish-mash, and there has never truly been a separation between church and state in America.
Also…
“It does not mean [...] that churches [...] are mandated by law to stay out of politics.”
Are you sure? Isn’t that exactly what it means? It’s difficult to quickly research, a lot of the legal language is geared toward mandating that politics stay out of religion.