by VorJack
Providing a label for a person’s religion can be easy or it can be impossible. My parents fall into that latter category. Mom is, for lack of a better phrase, just not the religious type. Dad was once a liberal Christian, but then crossed the invisible boundary into unbelief. I call them both agnostic and let it go at that.
They both dropped out of our regular Episcopal church shortly after I went to college, and I thought they’d never go back. So imagine my surprise to visit and find them both regular church goers. They attend different churches, and in different ways are heavily involved in the community.
Now, read carefully. I said church goers, not believers. You can listen to my mother for hours about her church activities (and trust me, I did), but you will not hear the words “God,” “prayer,” or “worship.” You’ll hear words like mending, knitting and potluck. Since she retired, mom has made a little Moravian church the center of her social life and volunteer efforts. She sells quilts to raise funds, she does mending for the local hospital, and she’s even picked up the clarinet after 40 years just to join the church band.
Pullquote: There is nothing that acts as a secular clearinghouse of social and charitable activities the way a church does.
Dad’s story is more complicated, but the basic idea is the same. The small Episcopalian church he now attends is the center of his social activities. These activities have done my parents a lot good on a personal basis, and they’ve become more involved in helping the local community as well. All of this squares with the latest Pew Research Study on religion and citizenship:
The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community…. The reason for the increased civic engagement may come as a surprise to religious leaders. It has nothing to do with ideas of divine judgment, or with trying to secure a seat in heaven. Rather, it’s the relationships people make in their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples that draw them into community activism.
By becoming involved in a church that acts as a nexus for social activism, charity and other good works, my parents have benefited both themselves and their communities. Their vague religious beliefs and lack of faith haven’t changed a whit.
Now, this is not a call for all good atheists to head to church. But it is an observation: there is no atheist equivalent to a church. Most atheist groups I’ve dealt with function as support groups or drinking circles. There is nothing that acts as a clearinghouse of social and charitable activities the way a church does.
What can atheists create that would have the social benefits of a church without the explicit religious function of a church? Is anyone involved in an institution that you think works that way? Should we take a look at Paul Kurtz and Robert M. Price’s suggestion to start up lyceums again?
it could be potentially really awkward, to say the least.
but it could also be awesome. there would need costumes.
yes, costumes. who wants to pick a theme?
How about a Fellowship Community to provide a safe haven and a support community. Perhaps online with VOIP and collaboration tools.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find that a good percentage of people attending church do so more for the social aspect then the religion itself. I have known a few that attended select churches not for the message but for the contacts they made there. I can see how attending something weekly could make you more active in the community, its harder to avoid community problems when you know people being affected by them.
I would say you would need to set it up similar to how churches are set up but make the members more active in what is discussed and who is selected to speak at the meetings. I would say in the beginning you would need to focus on local issues that will draw people to join and only get involved in bigger issues once you have a large enough group to be seen as vocie to be listened to.
No thanks. One of the benefits of being an atheist is having Sundays free. And church is hardly the only social activity available for those who want to form local contacts. There are all sorts of business & professional associations, political groups, clubs, etc. The idea of an atheist “church” gives credence to those who think that atheism is religion. Atheists come in all types and views, and may agree on nothing other than the non-existence of God/gods.
And there are already organizations for atheist activists who hold compatible views, such as various Freethinker societys and other groups.
The advantage to being a member of the First Church of Peyton Manning is that my Sunday’s consist of waking up at 11, having breakfast and adjusting my fantasy football lineups, then watching NFL games from noon ’til 11pm and then likely discussing the Colts game until midnight or 1.
Joe B -
Even though I am a Bears fan, I like your style.
I have the misfortune of rooting for the Browns…
They had a good draft though. I liked Mack and Robiskie a lot.
The thing that really struck me about this piece is that this couple are attending seperate churches and basically leading totally seperate lives. Perhaps they have issues in their marriage that need to be addressed and they are filling a void.
I found the whole thing kinda sad. There are lots of ways to be involved in your community other than attending a church.
maybe its me.
I’ll be honest, I think having seperate social circles has done wonders for my parent’s relationship. When I was there, they did far less arguing than I remember them doing before.
It’s complicated and you’d have to know my father, but I think they’re at the stage of marriage where being able to go off and do your own thing for a while is beneficial.
And that’s probably all you want to know about my parent’s marriage.
point taken. and you obviously know them better than a bunch of strangers on a message board. Sorry I came to conclusions. :)
What about the likes of Roundtable or the Lions Club (not sure if these organisations exist in US?). They are secular organisations, but do many fundraisers and charitable works, as well as being social and networking groups.
There does not need to be an “atheist” anything. We don’t need a non-astrologer church. Having an organized community fellowship of some kind organized around helping people and strengthening a community need not exclude the religious.
I don’t think atheists need a church or group just for themselves. Secular community activities already exist if you put out the effort to find what you’re looking to do and make friends. I guess something about churches usually is that the people want to get together for not-really-church things, and they’re already organized by their church. In this way, you get one “unit” of the community and people who participate in different parts of it, like the fundraising or the musical portion of the “unit.” They get to meet with their friends and do different things with them. It’s sort of like high school for grown-ups – you got the jocks and the poets and the chess club and the prom committee and etcetera. Question now is, do we need a high school for grown-ups, to organize ourselves and get involved?
NO. People who belong to churches may seem to be “more active” in their community, but you may not want the company that goes along with it. I think they are more interested in the company than they are the activity (except for not feeling bored and useless). I guess the nice thing is you can go do that if you want to, if you never thought about it before, join up with an open-door church. The other way around for atheists is you can go do whatever you want with the people you want to do it with. We don’t need a central council giving us a list of things we might enjoy doing in teams. Remember, this church extracurricula is for people with time on their hands and no idea what might be fun until someone suggests it and then go along with their church friends. They might even get a small chair leadership type of position from being bossy enough and hanging around too long. Nice little ego boost to be in charge of something. Probably get matching satin jackets with your names embroidered on them and the church logo on the back.
I’d note further that religious rituals divide. A Jew will feel uncomfortable celebrating Christmas with his not-so-religious Christian buddies, and a Christian won’t (regularly) get invited to Passover. Whereas secular rituals unite. A Jew will feel comfortable celebrating Independence Day, and a Christian will feel comfortable celebrating the Solstice (as long as it’s just a celebration of the astrological phenomena, not some pagan weird stuff).
I think there is a need for a Secular Church, in the sense of establishing (more) secular holidays and rituals, providing a local community, organizing aid drives, and so on. But I’m not sure whether such a thing is possible, due to the nature of the beast (that is, of atheists).
There may been secular Churches full of atheists for quite some time. Google Church of Freethought
There’s two in Texas; The North Texas Church of Freethought, and The Houston Church of Freethought. One has also be established in California; The North California Church of Freethought.
Texas officials have agreed to extend tax-exempt status to a non-theistic church. These churches have federal tax exemption as well.
You can track their community work on Facebook.
They have podcasts.
They participate in secular debate.
I think the idea of freethought churches is a great idea.
Also, here in Austin, there is Ethical Society:
http://www.esoa.org/
“The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community”
Maybe our community is larger than a mere neighbourhood… ;-)
“I would never join any club that would have ME for a member…”
– Woody Allen (?)
Groucho Marx
Surely the greatest negative of religion is its divisiveness? “Belonging” to a church only helps to create the “us and them” mentality that is the cause of so much trouble. The idea of an atheist church is ludicrous, I could already barely believe my ears when I found out about organisations like the Atheist Alliance. It’s misguided. Someone’s personal beliefs are not the problem, it is the divisiveness and segregation of religion which is what we should be striving to eradicate. Forming up “atheist only” clubs will only exacerbate the problem. Warren Falk is right to say there is no need to exclude the religious – that is prejudiced and biased towards one set of beliefs, and the whole problem with religion (and I would think the reason many people are against it) is the bias towards one’s own beliefs leading to segregation, prejudice and conflict.
I think a secular “church” is fine, one that does not require or prescribe a particular point of view, but don’t really see how it’s any different to a community centre or what have you. If your parents are contributing to the community then what does it matter what flag they fly under, if any?
The final end goal should be to end the division amongst people that religion causes. If you create an “atheist” church exclusively for people with the same viewpoint to congregate and try to evangelise that viewpoint then all you’ve done is formed yet another religion. God knows we have enough already!
@billybee
it was groucho marx :D
I’ve had this exact thought many times. The one thing I can look back on fondly, when it comes to the church, is the social aspect of it. It truly was a tight knit group, and I’d love to have something like it with people who don’t believe anymore. This is one reason the blog world has been so interesting for me. I’ve found other people who have gone through the same thing I have, and have stories to tell. I learn a lot from my fellow ex-Christians (or ex-any religion, really).
I disagree wholeheartedly. The problem, in my mind, with this idea is that an atheist is being asked to sublimate their opinions, beliefs and feelings in order to be allowed to participate in the “society”. By this same reasoning, gay people should attend churches that renounce gays, but not tell anyone that they are gay so they aren’t ostracized or hounded. What the heck kind of “fellowship” is that? You can feel accepted if you pretend to be someone else?
I think this entire argument, idea stems from the tired argument that, without (a) God, atheists are immoral. Obviously, an immoral, self-centered non-believer could never find someone to contribute to their community or give to another human being–I mean, without the magical pot of Godly gold at the end, why would they?–so if we don’t find a way to sneak into church (which is, in this philosophy, the only place in which good is done), we’ll never benefit the world.
Does this make the nonsense clear? There are thousands and thousands of non-religious groups out in every community–from pet shelters to adult reading programs to foster care to mentoring to park cleanup. There is an abundance of opportunities to help your community without subjugating yourself to religious silliness.
Even if you are talking about potlucks, nights out, camping trips or anything else, there are still secular groups that provide all of that. In Austin, for example, the ACA produces several shows (the Atheist Experience and the Non-Prophets). After both of them are finished, there are meetings at a restaurant downtown for “atheist-friendly” folks to get together, have some food, and talk about things.
The idea that a “church” is the only place for this is complete nonsense. I don’t buy it from Christians (or any other flavor of religion), I don’t buy it from the “Church of Freethought”, and I am always surprised that anyone else would. It seems to me that, more than anything, the people interested in this are interested in the ritual Sunday meetup, the formality and the general feel of things–nostalgia for church, basically, without the belief. Sort of like tofurkey.
I disagree wholeheartedly. The problem, in my mind, with this idea is that an atheist is being asked to sublimate their opinions, beliefs and feelings in order to be allowed to participate in the “society”. By this same reasoning, gay people should attend churches that renounce gays, but not tell anyone that they are gay so they aren’t ostracized or hounded. What the heck kind of “fellowship” is that? You can feel accepted if you pretend to be someone else?
I don’t think that has anything to do with VorJack’s post. I read VorJack to simply be saying that his parents missed the social interaction and community involvement that was part and parcel with ‘church life’ in their community.
I think this entire argument, idea stems from the tired argument that, without (a) God, atheists are immoral. Obviously, an immoral, self-centered non-believer could never find someone to contribute to their community or give to another human being–I mean, without the magical pot of Godly gold at the end, why would they?–so if we don’t find a way to sneak into church (which is, in this philosophy, the only place in which good is done), we’ll never benefit the world.
I definitely know VorJack doesn’t buy that, and I don’t think debunking this argument or affirming it is his point here.
The idea that a “church” is the only place for this is complete nonsense. I don’t buy it from Christians (or any other flavor of religion), I don’t buy it from the “Church of Freethought”, and I am always surprised that anyone else would. It seems to me that, more than anything, the people interested in this are interested in the ritual Sunday meetup, the formality and the general feel of things–nostalgia for church, basically, without the belief. Sort of like tofurkey.
I don’t think he said it was the only way to be involved in the community, and you certainly provided a nice list of ways to be involved without going to church.
I read VorJack to have a couple points. First, just his general story that was surprising to him. Second, that the churches his parents attend function as “clearinghouses” for social and community involvement. The “clearinghouse” idea is particularly interesting to me, because I am currently serving as an AmeriCorps member at a state-based agency whose primary function is the promotion of volunteerism… and one of the biggest conversations happening at the moment is how we might be able to create such a ‘clearinghouse.’ So far, we haven’t been able to.
I don’t think that has anything to do with VorJack’s post.
I’ll admit that it might not have been well-worded, but this is exactly what VorJack is talking about–his parents, non-believers, had to keep their opinions to themselves, pretend to be Christians in order to join their community.
I definitely know VorJack doesn’t buy that, and I don’t think debunking this argument or affirming it is his point here.
I don’t think he thinks this either, really. But this is something we hear from Christians often enough–or from those, I think, that like the “form” of a church, but not the substance: that it would be good if we had a “church” of our own. This is why the Church of Freethought gets together–friendship, meeting, talking, helping. But my question is this: why a church? Why not an Association, Brotherhood, Order, etc? These are all correct words for what VorJack (and others) are talking about, but without the religious tones.
What makes a church a “clearinghouse” is not that it is a church–it is that a large group of people meet regularly for several hours. However, the same is true of many groups–Rotarians, Optimists, SCA, Bowlers, Atheist Associations, etc. So what is it about a church that any one of these groups can’t (or, for that matter, don’t) do? Public service, support, friendship–all of these exist in many groups outside of a “church”
If VorJack’s point is that, in today’s world a place that many turn in time of need is a church, that has little to do with it being a church, or being an historical “clearinghouse” of good deeds, and more with the face that 95% of the US is religious and so will fall back on the parent/child feelings of yore when they are frightened or in danger. But again, there is nothing about a church that makes this so except for the overwhelming majority.
“These are all correct words for what VorJack (and others) are talking about, but without the religious tones.”
Actually, if you notice I brought up Kurtz’s suggestion of a lyceum, which is nothing like a church. Or rather, it could be like a church if the sermon were given by a different person each week and you were allowed to question the presenter.
But nevermind. I though I made clear in the last paragraph that I think atheists should form or join institutions that can perform the charitable and social functions of a church, but not the liturgical or religious functions. Do you see the difference between the two, or do you think the soup must always come with a sermon?
Here, let me put it another way that might give a better direction to your ire: we atheists are getting our butts kicked. Did you read the Pew Forum survey I linked to? If not, here’s the title: “Religious people make better citizens, study says.”
Fun, huh? How long before Ray Comfort and the rest are rubbing our faces in this? There have been other studies that show atheists give less to charity that believers. I’ve already seen these surveys brought up in other forums as evidence that believers are more moral than atheists.
So what are we gonna do? I think the primary weapon of the believers is the church. Churches make it easy and compelling to give or volunteer. Atheists don’t have a place where the go, hang out, drink some wine, and then listen to people rattle off the local causes that are looking for volunteers.
You can point out the other options that atheists have available, but right now they don’t seem to be working, at least not according to the Pew Forum. So what do we do?
Convert :)
Gosh, thanks
The one thing that religion has that atheism doesn’t is the power to inspire. A very subjective but important quality; that makes people extend themselves in ways they would otherwise not. Hence one of the greatest achievements of Christianity is its art.
“Convert”
No. ‘Not possible, while remaining intellectually honest with myself. If “faith” is to be employed, then an endless list of things can be accepted as “true”. But of course, you knew all of this already, since it’s been explained to you a bazillion times.
Of course you rely on your faculties of reason because thus far, its the only faculty you’re aware of that exists, you see no other “reasonable” option from which to base your life and choices on. I do not and have never disparaged this, rather I have only sought to poin out the existance of another, higher yet unknown faculty within us all.
If (when) you become aware of this additional “faculty” you will understand why I so longed to share it with you. There is more to man(kind) than meets the eye.
And how does this supposed extra faculty work, exactly? If you could just tell me, maybe I’d quit doubting you. What is its mechanism? Where is it housed? If it is unknown, then how do you know about it?
“Of course you rely on your faculties of reason because thus far, its the only faculty you’re aware of that exists..”
First Principle: Existence exists.
I trust(as opposed ot have “faith” in) my “faculties of reason”, because they have a proven, verifiable track record. Until you can likewise prove/verify that an invisible, conscious being is in charge of a “spiritual” realm, and that it wants me to “trust” in him/her/it, I am sticking with my faculties of reason, thanks.
“…you see no other ‘reasonable’ option from which to base your life and choices on.”
I see no reason to *need* an alternative, an “option”, with which to “base” my “life and choices on”. What I *do* see, is self-proclaimed “spiritual” people – people such as yourself – running around insisting that I need to base my life on their own personal experiences—experiences that, once again, are unverfiable, and have zero objective confirmation.
“…rather I have only sought to [point] out the existance of another, higher yet unknown faculty within us all. If (when) you become aware of this additional ‘faculty’ you will understand why I so longed to share it with you. ”
Fantastic. So, when/if I experience this supposed indwelling “higher” faculty, I *might* share your eagerness to believe in it.
“There is more to man(kind) than meets the eye.”
Thanks for your opinion.
I did read the article, but it was not a study. I found no links in that article to the original source. What I found was an article with a byline from the “Religion News Service”. Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical.
I guess my biggest argument (and I’m sorry if my tone was off yesterday) is that we have no evidence of this supposed greater community involvement from churches. We have one guy on the Pew Research claiming this, but providing no data, research or links to the study to back it up.
What got my was that when the non-religious repeat that sort of tripe, it becomes more deeply ingrained in the popular psyche and harder to argue against, even if it isn’t true.
Here in Austin, the ACA actually does have a lyceum. They meet every Sunday to talk and hang out, except the first Sunday of the month when they have a guest lecturer. On top of that, the ACA is involved in many charities.
So, I guess, I’m arguing that Daniel Burke is making an (insulting) incorrect assertion in his article, and doesn’t offer any evidence to support it. So, given that, how do you–or anyone else–suggest that the religious are any more supportive of their communities than the non-religious?
So, short of pointing out all the ways that the article at Pew is wrong, how can I prove to you that it is wrong?
but it was not a study. I found no links in that article to the original source.
Whoops, I get that tangled up, didn’t I? I’m sorry, I copied the quote down with some notes, then later forgot what the article was.
The research and numbers are supposedly in the book “American Grace: How Religion is Reshaping our Civic and Political Lives,” by Robert Putnam and David Campbell, which won’t be out until next year. Apparently they released some of their numbers at a conference, but those numbers probably won’t be available outside of scholarly circles until after the book hits the shelves. There’s a lengthy report on it on Thomas Sander’s Social Capital Blog.
Robert Putnam is a name to conjure with right now. His book, “Bowling Alone,” is massively influential – not necessarily correct, you understand, but influential. It looks like “American Grace” draws the idea of ‘social capital,’ which was the centerpiece of “Bowling Alone.” “Grace” seems to be saying that churches act as a central node of social networks. From Sander’s report:
According to Sanders, they draw these conclusions from surveys, interviews and case studies. Until “American Grace” comes out, this is what the discussion will have to be based around.
how do you–or anyone else–suggest that the religious are any more supportive of their communities than the non-religious?
Because churches make it easy and compelling to do so. Because every church service ends with a section called the “announcements,” where everyone is encouraged to bring up things going on in the community that could use some support. Because the people asking for assistance are part of the “us” group that all the members belong to, and is thus part of an extended friend-and-family group. So when an elderly man needs some assistance, but the usual circle of family has moved on and his friends are all just as infirm, then it’s usually his church group that steps in.
Because Americans – who mostly don’t know a catechism from a catheter – know that Christianity is about being nice to people. Because other people know this, and turn to churches when they need a little help. And so churches act as a hub for the social networks, encouraging people to come in with the problems that one or two volunteers could fix. So when the local hospice needs some mending done, the turn to the local church rather than the local union hall.
As a result, churches act as a clearinghouse for these sorts of small-scale charity issues. Someone with a small problem knows that they can go to their church group and ask for help, and there it won’t be seen as off-topic or an imposition. This is part of what a church is for. And so they do so, which reinforces the perception.
In the past, these sorts of functions could be handled by other institutions, like “friendship societies” and other social groups. Part of Putnam’s thesis in “Bowling Alone” is that these institutions – from the PTA to the local bowling league – have been in decline for the past half-century. My guess is that “American Grace” suggests that churches are one of the few institutions left that can fill this role.
Check out your local Unitarian Universalist congregation. They may just be full of atheists (depending on the congregation). http://www.uua.org/
My Methodist girlfriend occasionally makes feeble attempts to bring me to church, and she once suggested that we find a Unitarian church to go to.
No Sunday activity could trump the NFL.
Unitarians are basically wannabe Atheists/Agnostics, they’re just afraid to be themselves in this Judeo/Christian society (American); and I don’t blame them. For being such a “love-based” theology, J/Cs seem to have a lot more hate in their hearts than any non-believer I’ve ever met.
Even the most militantly Atheistic people I’ve known had far more frustration with non-Atheists than hate of them.
I’m afraid you’re off-base on that one. Do a bit of research. Unitarians include atheists (typically humanists) as well as agnostics, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. Each congregation is different, and many contain a mix of the above mentioned. Some do not like to be labelled and individually encompass a variety of beliefs.
“Some do not like to be labelled and individually encompass a variety of beliefs.”
Now, you make sense.
No Church. Imagine if it was wildly successful how it would slowly get corrupted. Eventually the members would be paying money to be buried in the communal atheist member grave or some stupid non-sense. Your mom sounds a lot like mine. With a very old fashioned, domineering husband there are a lot of women that completely devote their lives to religion in order to distance themselves from the a-hole they married. There’s actually a psychological term for them that I can’t remember. My mom was so entrenched she would talk about under what situations your guardian angel would protect you and which ones it wouldn’t.
There are, indeed, many positive aspects of belonging to a church community, especially if you’re looking to raise children in a community that shares and supports your values. Many of us have found a home in Unitarian Universalist congregations for just that reason.
I not really looking at raising children right now. Frankly, I think the whole church/kids thing is overblown. I’m more interested in the way that churches act as a hub for certain kinds of charity and volunteerism. If we can figure out a way to do that without a shred of religious language or liturgical ritual, I’ll be happy.
vorjack, you’d be hard pressed to find that without the inspiring figure of Jesus. Turn the other cheek, treat others as you would yourself, sell all you own and come follow me…. Atheists will never have the equivalent.
Of all the falsehoods I’ve heard, that is one of the most ridiculously, patently false.
Maybe. But in one way he’s right. Inspiration is the one thing a secular organization would have difficulty replicating. Call it the transcendent experience. It could take the form of hallucination or simply a feeling of wanting to transcend a personal weakness (sin). To extend oneself beyond perceived limitations, in whatever area, be it charitable donation, volunteerism or artistry. Its pretty clear that the communal aspects of religion can be addressed in other ways unrelated to religion. This does not appear to be the case with inspiration. Whether the source is false or not, the passion it inspires is real. Unfortunately a lot of that passion is expressed in destructive ways. I don’t think atheism can replicate this kind of passion.
Lycaeums would be AWESOME.
A proper centre for secular discussion, collaboration and engagement to social questions with the added benefit of not pushing anybody for the money (and yes, we would pay taxes, haha)? Sounds great for me!
The Lions, Rotary, soup kitchen managers, Humane Society, fulfill a different part, I think. Activity clubs like a bicycle club fill a yet different part. I’ve considered checking out the Unitarians, but am still chary of groups with a “religious” theme.
In his posts or “my story” part, Daniel said one of the things he missed, or at least one of the positive things, was what xians call fellowship. (Sorry – I gag on that word a bit in reactions to hearing so many xians use it, even though it is a valid concept.)
I agree with half of vorjack’s recent statement: the whole *kids* thing is overblown.
As a recovering Catholic, that sense of community/ extracurricular activities stuff was part of what I enjoyed about church, but I’ve absolutely found friends doing other things than going to church.
There’s a vast community of knitters in the world, and knitting, a very secular activity, has become the central activity that brings us to meet locally. There’s even an atheist/agnostic knitters forum on the ravelry.com site, in case I feel the need to chat with like-minded folks.
I’ve also found social connections through work, through political campaign volunteering, and through my local food co-op – none of which have anything to do with religion. The sense of community is important, but for me does not involve church.
I don’t knit, but have found many friends this way. My wife is a big knitter (she should be NoelleNoodle on ravelry, or some variation of that), and the first 2 things we did when we moved to Austin were : Go to Fry’s Electronics (for me) and go to a knitting group (for her). She is unable to drive, so I end up attending almost as many knitting groups as she does–and I agree that the knitting groups that are everywhere these days serve as an excellent meeting place and community gathering point.
I’ve been consistently impressed at the vast range of people that meet up amiably every week. Not just differences like lace- vs. wild-knitters, but republican & democrat, old and young, new and long-time knitters and every other combination. Not only serving to grease the wheel of community interaction by promoting contact between diverse groups, but also humanizing those we are apt to otherwise dismiss.
I’m in a huge fiber-arts area, and I’ve found that knitting groups can often backfire. There are a handful of knitters in the area who are hardcore – as in starting with the sheep or alpaca. Another insists on practicing the ‘original’ knitting – Icelandic nalbinding. All with reindeer bone needles, of course. These purists end up chasing away a lot of the more casual knitters.
When I was first starting in the library science program, there were a handful of us who knit in class. Then we all had a class with one professor who raised her own sheep and produced these incredible sweaters. I used to call them “sermons in wool.” After that class, everyone was to intimidated to knit where the professor might see us.
Oh good grief. Obviously sanctimonious BS isn’t limited to religious minds, it must be some sort of evolutionary adaptation.
Can’t find the article at the moment… But I remember reading about an “atheist church” that hosted a speaker every Sunday for their service. Typically some kind of scientist who gave a presentation or demonstration. Sounded like a really neat idea.
I attended church when I visited my parents a few years ago, and was PROFOUNDLY uncomfortable. Although there may have been some who didn’t believe in literal truth of the bible, you’d never know it from the service. I cannot live with integrity and attend places where they talk about things that I am strongly against. For example, doing everything for the glory of god – I feel this is a sick leftover from the idea of an angry, jealous god that we must grovel to in order to appease. So even the most seemingly innocuous statements in church are often offense to my sense of morality. I would love to find a “church” where people believe as I do, because this is what true fellowship is. If I told the truth about what I believed at my parent’s church, there would be a horrified silence, muffled gasps, and then renewed efforts to save me. If I cannot be honest, I cannot attend. I guess people who do not feel as strongly as I do about religion could attend church for social reasons and it may not affect their sense of integrity. However, I do think that many people in church no longer believe and are too frightened to say anything because they may lose their social support system. I think this is sad.
As I mentioned above on June 15 @1:27pm, you could try a Unitarian Universalist congregation. Each one tends to be different, although they would all follow the 7 Principles of Unitarian Universalism. check out http://www.uua.org/
Oh … and you would definitely find any “literal interpretation of the word of God” there. Very liberal. And very much into social justice.
Sorry – I meant definitely NOT find any “literal interpretation …”
(Boy, am I ever screwing-up tonight!)
Drunk?
We’re atheists. It’s our job to be drunk. Preferably while being simultaneously disorderly. There are xtians on this site – we don’t want to lose our street cred with ‘em.
S’okay. We’re not interpreting you literally.
No, just tired. Literally!
Another side note about volunteerism. I volunteered a few times for a wonderful local organization that supports the homeless. I really believe in the cause. However, if I would have identified myself as atheist, they would have refused to allow me to volunteer because I might “lead people astray”. So even though the church may do some good work in the way of helping others (known as the social gospel in my circles), ultimately people in need are not as important as dogma.
Sorry – I meant definitely NOT find any “literal interpretation …”