Mother Teresa Doubter/Doer

[Zerbie]

Gentlemen.

It grieves me to observe two men of such integrity, each full of passion for social justice, arguing in such a negative way. The conversation could proceed far more gently and respectfully than this.

[Joe Brummer]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Gentlemen.

It grieves me to observe two men of such integrity, each full of passion for social justice, arguing in such a negative way. The conversation could proceed far more gently and respectfully than this.

Sadly, Zerbie I don't know that is true. I have had conversations with many theists in my days of having my blog and my website and even posting here. Trust me, when you say you do not believe in god, the response is this. There is no way to address this that is nice or polite.

We somehow have given religion and faith a "go". It somehow gets more respect than it deserves except then it is the god we choose. If I were to give this sort of critique to another god, the response would be applauded, but when I am critical of the faith held by those in the room, I am not worth dialgue or discussion. Sadly, this is the type of thinking and lack of critical thinking skills that brought down the World Trade Center. We need, we must question faith and god. Period. I don't care who it offends, I care whose life it saves.

think about this:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg

[Progo35]

Joe:

I think that what U dog is responding to is your percieved attitude toward those who hold faith, which is probably why he went as far as to say that if you say, "I don't believe in God," there isn't much left to say that isn't offensive. Frankly, for someone who is upset by the idea of people having faith to try to discredit those who hold faith is offensive to those people, just as it is when religious people stereotype atheists. As i've said in respect to other issues on this forum, bias is bias and stereotyping is stereotyping. Stereotyping people of faith is not any better or more justified than stereotyping atheists. No one was attacking you at all before you wrote that we had accused you of attacking people's faith. No one said, "Joe stinks." We responded to the article, and to a woman who dedicated her entire life to the poor being attacked for something that is a feature of faith, not attacked by you, but attacked by many people over the last few weeks.

As to World War II, the first thing that I want to point out as a matter of clarification is that at least 11 million people died in the holocaust, not six million, which only tells us how many jewish people were killed. Let us not ignore the lgbt, disabled, gypsy, communist, religious, and otherwise political victims.

As to Hitler being Catholic, I don't know what research you're using to support that, but history indicates that Hiter appropriated Christian imagery to support his ideology: for instance, there are many Nazi paintings that use golden colors and messianic-like imagery to depict Hitler, the German people, etc. One painting in Art and Propoganda in the Twentieth Century shows what looks like a Nazi Madonna, with an Aryan baby sitting on a woman's lap with a beam of light shining on him. There was also another dramatization that used the story of Christ's birth to purport nazi propoganda by substituting Christ with the Zeitgeist, an inpersonal spirit that Hitler believed was being embodied and enabled by the German people through the Third Reich.

This appropriation, however, was just that: appropriation. It is is clear that the Nazis discouraged any belief in a personal God as subversive to the authority of the German state. Like Nietzsche, Hitler had a major contempt for Christ and Judeo-christian philosophy as something that encouraged tolerance towards those he considered less than human-the jews, lgbt people, the disabled, gypsies, etc. He had a great fondness for Nordic legend, which involved what he saw as "strong" gods who enacted their will and went to Vahalla after bravely fighting off their opponents. This kind of violent totalitarianism is what he wanted the German people to promote. Churches who refused to adopt Hitler's modifications to their preaching, worship, etc, were punished via economic sanctions and derision. One person of faith that Hitler had particular contempt for was Bishop Galen, who spoke out against the involuntary euthanasia of disabled persons. He said that he would "deal with him after the war." Germany was a largely Christian nation before the Nazis came to power. So, Hitler could not have arrrested most Christian leaders without major uprisings. Sadly, one of the reason who targeted the jews and others were because they were minorities: thus, easier to 'round up.'

Catholic people, jehovah's witnesses, evangelical Christians and anyone else who refused to salute Hitler were sent to concentration camps. So, I think that it is safe to say that while Hitler appropriated Christian symbols for his own purposes, he was NOT a christian.

Finally, there are letters to others near the end of WWII where Hitler expresses an longing for death. He describes it as nothingness, a blank "peace" that one could compare to the Buddhist concept of Nirvana. In fact, it is also clear that Hitler got the concept of Aryanism from Indian art: gods being depicted as white, darker people being in the lower casts, etc. The swastika symbol is extremely ancient and was used in India thousands of years before Hitler. As with Christ's birth, Hitler appropriated this symbol to signify what spirit of the people, or "Zeitgeist."


For as concerned as some secularists claim to be about human rights, most newspapers and media outlets have ignored the secular element in the disability community that has repeatedly and loudly protested the dehydration and starvation of cognitively disabled persons and the legalization of euthanasia. It is always depicted as religious, conservative people vs. open minded, "compassionate" progressive people. You can imagine how many secular people in the disability community feel to be ignored by the media, as if they do not exist. While I have no idea where you stand on such issues, I am using them to demonstrate that for people so concerned with civil rights, the "progressive" people in the NY times, MSNBC, etc, don't seem too concerned about the disabled community. In fact, with the glaring exception of futile care laws, which exist in our country's most conservative states, secularists have been at the forefront of arguing for the dehumanization of disabled persons. Peter Singer is one example. He says that since the Judeo Christian ethic has been superseded by science, it is irrational to assign value to a human life because it is human and that parents should therefore be allowed to have disabled children euthanized, even if the disability is relatively minor, such a a learning disorder, down syndrome, hemophelia, etc.

This tells me that the secular world is just as messed up as any faction of the religious world. For all of the attestations that secularists are more tolerant, loving, or nonviolent than religious people, many facts contradict this statement.

The truth is is that there are bad people in every group. Selfishness, anxiety, insecurity, and violence is part of the human condition, not part of the religious or non religious condition. Any intolerance is bad, and so, I don't think that we should assign any more justification to the bias of Hawkins than to that of James Dobson.

You say that you want people to look at evidence. Well, many of us have and we have decided to believe in God. That does not mean that we did not look at evidence. I believe in God because I sense his presence. I feel connection to Him all the time and based on my reason, I feel that that connection is based on a reality. Mathematically, I believe that the odds of everything in nature working the way it does by chance is harder to accept than the odds that it was designed that way. As to how old the earth is, I, along with many Christians and religious people, don't care. I've never had a problem believing that God created the world in six days and that the world billions of years old. As U-Dog and Stephen have pointed out, there is a difference between faith and fact. Do some religious people feel that they have to reconcile these things for various reasons? Sure. But someone saying that the world is ten thousand years old and that we should give scientific consideration to that view is not an affront directed against you personally, or even evolution. Looking at them side by side is a balanced academic exercise. When you assert that anyone who wants to consider this possibility is deluded to the extent of being dangerous, you then evidence a desire to stunt that inquiry, just as some creationists wanted to stunt the exploration of evolutionism in the Scopes trial. Saying that religious faith is inherently dangerous and that you cannot rely on evidence and have faith at the same time implies that religious people lack the capacity to understand reality and is therefore insulting to such people.

It is good to discuss these differences of opinion. That is healthy. But if you think that you are going to "open our eyes" to the "fact" that God does not exist, I agree with UDog that you are making this attempt in the wrong place. I'm willing to guess that the people here aren't any warmer to having atheism prostyltized to them as their potential salvation than they are to fundamentalist Christianity or Islam.

-Meghan

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

Sadly, Zerbie I don't know that is true.

This isn't just any blog. This is Soulforce. We (usually) acheive great things here, such as respectfully and kindly disagreeing with one another, and remaining loving friends even when in disagreement about deeply held personal convictions.

I have had conversations with many theists in my days of having my blog and my website and even posting here. Trust me, when you say you do not believe in god, the response is this. There is no way to address this that is nice or polite.

Let's make a way.

We somehow have given religion and faith a "go". It somehow gets more respect than it deserves except then it is the god we choose. If I were to give this sort of critique to another god, the response would be applauded,

Do you truly perceive all the regulars here as being that simplistic in their thinking? If so, you need to spend more time reading the things they have to say on a regular basis on a wide variety of topics.

but when I am critical of the faith held by those in the room, I am not worth dialgue or discussion. Sadly, this is the type of thinking and lack of critical thinking skills that brought down the World Trade Center.

Whoa. Too harsh, and completely off-base to describe any of the regulars here in this way. Can you see that assertions like this are why you have been perceived as "offensive?" If I were U-dog, I would be beyond insulted at that remark.

We need, we must question faith and god. Period. I don't care who it offends, I care whose life it saves.

think about this:

Two things about the paragraph above: the quote, that would be true if it had only said "that takes ABUSE OF religion." Real religion leads to the very opposite of the catastrophes you describe. Unfortunately, real religion is quite rare in this world. Most of us are on a path somewhere towards it, and some abuse it to evil ends.

My perception of this conversation thus far is that you are not giving the others here a fair chance. You ask them to examine and question their faith, but I would ask you to examine and question your assertions, which, and I could be mistaking you so far, seem to be painting anyone who believes in God at all with a very broad brush. That any religion at all ignores science and fact. These claims, if indeed they are your claims, are overly broad and inaccurate. The problem often seems to be religion, but it is not so - the problem is abuse of religion.

So many people who work in social justice, for the environment, feeding the poor and the sick, etc., do so because of their religious convictions. It is inaccurate to see only the catastrophic results of the systematic abuse of religion while ignoring the positives that come from it. For those of us who are typically unaware of the positive force of religion, and I speak for myself here, it can very therapeutic to observe the great good that can also come of it.

All a very long way of saying I read you as being closed off to the people here who believe in God, and the fact that you don't care if you offend U-dog reads loud and clear.

I would prefer it if you did care about how your words make others feel. Non-violence applies to our speech, too, Joe, probably even more than to anything else.

[Daniel]

We are, whether we like it or not, all connected to one another. We breath the same air, have the same desire for happiness and the avoidance of pain and suffering. We all desire to see the end of suffering of gay persons at the hand of Christian Fundamentalists.

Isn't that why we are here?

Before we see an end to the suffering or our brothers and sisters, we are going to have to learn how to tolerate- yea- even have compassion for one another. We are going to have to learn how to stop hurting others as we have been hurt.

Forgive my hubris, but I think this can only start when we question ourselves, deeply and profoundly. We can't ask others to do what we ourselves will not do.

Honesty and self-awareness comes with a price.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

I am sorry, I don't understand your point. Could I request you explain it further? I am intrigued but your thought but need more clarification on them.

I am simply saying that Atheists don't view Christianity through the spectacles of faith...they see some things about religion very clearly. I believe Christians should welcome these perspectives and ask the difficult questions about their religion and the brutal effect it often has. I'm not suggesting Christians abandon their beliefs but simply that they take critiques of Atheists seriously.

[Joe Brummer]

Originally Posted by zerbie

My perception of this conversation thus far is that you are not giving the others here a fair chance. You ask them to examine and question their faith, but I would ask you to examine and question your assertions, which, and I could be mistaking you so far, seem to be painting anyone who believes in God at all with a very broad brush. That any religion at all ignores science and fact. These claims, if indeed they are your claims, are overly broad and inaccurate. The problem often seems to be religion, but it is not so - the problem is abuse of religion.

Zerbie,
You seem to be under the impression that I have singled out the members of Soulforce and their faith and I have not. More people in my life and the world around me are believers of one sort or another. Believe me I give all of them a fair chance.

Religion, does ignore science. That isn't overly broad in anyway. It is a fact of life.

In order for their to be abuse of religion, there has to be religion.

I have taught nonviolence for years now. One thing that I have learned is that to make change through nonviolence, it is active. You need to rock the boat. I have called no ones names, I have said nothing about anyone personally. I have attacked very broadly religion. Not Christians, not Muslims, not any one faith. Not even the Cargo Faiths waiting for John Frum. I would think to to be violent of me if I were attacking those things, I am not.

[Joe Brummer]

Originally Posted by antonyh

I am simply saying that Atheists don't view Christianity through the spectacles of faith...they see some things about religion very clearly. I believe Christians should welcome these perspectives and ask the difficult questions about their religion and the brutal effect it often has. I'm not suggesting Christians abandon their beliefs but simply that they take critiques of Atheists seriously.

Thank you for clarifying that. I agree with you.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

Zerbie,
You seem to be under the impression that I have singled out the members of Soulforce and their faith and I have not. More people in my life and the world around me are believers of one sort or another. Believe me I give all of them a fair chance.


.

No I am not. Quite the opposite. I find you painting members here with a broad brush of over-generalization and lumping many of them in with company they do not keep. A few posts above you diectly stated they have a "lack of critical thinking skills." Then you said you don't care that you are being offensive. How is that "a fair chance?" A fair chance to abandon their own convictions in favor of yours? Because that is how it seems to come across.

Your words here have been harsh and inaccurate. Nonviolence includes our speech.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Forgive my hubris, but I think this can only start when we question ourselves, deeply and profoundly. We can't ask others to do what we ourselves will not do.

Honesty and self-awareness comes with a price.

Amen, Daniel. It is that understanding that has made all the difference in my comprehension of nonviolence. Gandhi said it so succinctly - "we must become the change we seek."

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

We won't ever get far with the battle for gay rights when religion is the basis. The beliefs take up more space than the facts. Sadly.

Now this is a provocative statement!

As I read through this thread, it occurs to me that the thought above is a matter worth addressing, though it's not the purpose of this thread, properly speaking. Perhaps a new one is in order?

Of course, the thought above would seem to draw the ground that Soulforce walks on into question, would it not? That is to say, a large part of Soulforce's efforts seem to be centered around making the world a better place for gay Christians (of course I know the purpose of the organization is not only that). The statement above would seem to imply that this effort won't be effective, right? Or am I reading too much into it?

And what is one to make of the fact that nonviolence itself is a product of religiously minded men? How does that factor in?

Heck! If an organization cannot question itself and grow- what use is it?

~

Oh dear....I fear I just threw a hand grenade into the room!

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I see Soulforce as engaged in seeking to make distinctions between good religion and bad religion, between nonviolent religion capable of doing good and spirtual violence that does harm. I believe we are self-critical in the sense that we attempt to continually examine ourselves--"am I being non-violent?" "do I need to adjust my beliefs/actions/policies as a result of a given dialogue?" etc. etc.

Joe seems to me to be challenging the whole idea of good and bad in religion. Religion is just categorically bad. No point in applying our critical reason to making fine distinctions about it. We should abandon the project of attempting to reform religion--we need to join together to abolish religion. (My apologies if I misunderstand your position, Joe.)

I'm sorry, I think the fine distinctions matter. Why can't we reject the simple-minded theism of a Pat Robertson and still appreciate the "panentheism" of Episcopal Bishop Jack Spong? Why can't we reject "religion" and still appreciate "spirituality?" (Joe, is it religion or spirituality that is the problem, or is it only theism, you object to? There are non-theistic religions, too.)

Are we, for example, to declare mainline, liberal Protestants our adversaries no matter how strongly they embrace the goal of LGBT equality and world peace? I had an extremly positive experience as an openly gay man earning a masters degree in Religious Studies from a progressive, Roman Catholic college--were my professors, in fact, bad, nasty, evil, crazy, irrational people all along? You won't convince me of that.

I wonder about those LGBT people who have experienced rejection both from their faith community on the one hand for their sexual identity, and from an anti-religion gay community that rejects their spiritual identity. That's a painful place to be--I know, I've been there. I believe things have been improving for those folks in recent years. The LGBT community has made alot of accepting spaces for all forms of spirituality. Even the Human Rights Campaign Fund provides an on-line bible study service for LGBT Christians. Soulforce has been part of that good work, in my opinion.

Steven Webster

[Joe Brummer]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Friends,

I see Soulforce as engaged in seeking to make distinctions between good religion and bad religion, between nonviolent religion capable of doing good and spirtual violence that does harm. I believe we are self-critical in the sense that we attempt to continually examine ourselves--"am I being non-violent?" "do I need to adjust my beliefs/actions/policies as a result of a given dialogue?" etc. etc.

This is an interesting idea. I have spent the last few years of my life asking myself "Am I being nonviolent?" For a short time, I kept a diary of violence much life Gandhi asked of his grandson. It was an eye opening experience.

At some point, I also want to explore the ideas of protective force. I needed to do that for the sake of balance. It has stopped me from asking the question as much as I use to.

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Joe seems to me to be challenging the whole idea of good and bad in religion. Religion is just categorically bad. No point in applying our critical reason to making fine distinctions about it. We should abandon the project of attempting to reform religion--we need to join together to abolish religion. (My apologies if I misunderstand your position, Joe.)

I must say I appreciate your recap. The tactic remind me of NVC from Marshall Rosenberg.

Faith is the process of believing in something without evidence. Each of us believes "our faith" is superior to other faiths. That piece of the issue alone scares me. Once we have believed that any set of beliefs is superior to others, we leave ourselves open for inequality, preferred treatment and eventually oppression. But part of the point of faith is that yours is above the next. If it wasn't so, then you would switch the superior faith right?

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

I'm sorry, I think the fine distinctions matter. Why can't we reject the simple-minded theism of a Pat Robertson and still appreciate the "panentheism" of Episcopal Bishop Jack Spong? Why can't we reject "religion" and still appreciate "spirituality?" (Joe, is it religion or spirituality that is the problem, or is it only theism, you object to? There are non-theistic religions, too.)

I absolutely think we can hold spirituality but reject the idea of god. I am very much a follower of Buddhist teachings, but won't go as far as to call myself a Buddhist.

The issue goes far beyond Christianity or Islam or any particular faith. This issue is far more complex than that. First we must recognize that in order for us to choose the "good" religion over the "bad" religions we must realize that such labels of good and bad also leave way for right and wrong religion and exactly which of us gets to decide such a subjective thing? It would be better to keep this in simple terms of just "god" not any one faith.

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Are we, for example, to declare mainline, liberal Protestants our adversaries no matter how strongly they embrace the goal of LGBT equality and world peace?

Again, It is better to look at the whole picture not just any one faith or denomination or we go back to "good" vs. "bad" and then who gets to decide whose god is good and whose is bad? It is those sort of conflicts of ideas that have led me to my current beliefs.

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

I had an extremly positive experience as an openly gay man earning a masters degree in Religious Studies from a progressive, Roman Catholic college--were my professors, in fact, bad, nasty, evil, crazy, irrational people all along? You won't convince me of that.

Steven, no where have I ever said that anyone is bad, evil, or nasty. I don't believe people are capable of "being" any of those things. I do believe people are capable of "doing" those things and more often than not it is either in defense of or the promotion of their faith. Irrational, I am beginning to think faith is irrational. So is love, but that isn't always a bad thing either. Irrational can lead to amazing things. It can also lead to very bad things.

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

I wonder about those LGBT people who have experienced rejection both from their faith community on the one hand for their sexual identity, and from an anti-religion gay community that rejects their spiritual identity. That's a painful place to be--I know, I've been there. I believe things have been improving for those folks in recent years. The LGBT community has made alot of accepting spaces for all forms of spirituality. Even the Human Rights Campaign Fund provides an on-line bible study service for LGBT Christians. Soulforce has been part of that good work, in my opinion.

These are all valid points I cannot dispute nor would I. I would offer but empathy for anyone I see in pain, but lets not loose sight of the fact the basis of the pain is not sexuality, but the superiority of whose faith does or doesn't accept GLBT folks. This still goes back to my thoughts that faith is, at its core, going to cause friction unless everyone believes as you do. When you add to that a cozy warm afterlife, I am more than afraid of where this will continue to lead us.

We must first ask the question of our faith. Is there a god? I believe, knowing that the universe is 173 billion light years wide, with billions and billions of galaxies that "god" would need to be conscious of all of those things and all of creation and me winning the powerball I am praying to win while still looking over a starving children is Africa. Such a being is very improbable. After we have address the idea that there even is a god, them maybe we could decide which religion or faith can describe him. Is it Islam? Christianity? Hinduism? John Frum? (which I urge you to take a look at)

I am not here to insult or offend, but make you take a cold, hard look. If faith is strong, then my challenge shouldn't be that big of a deal, should it?

[Joe Brummer]

As an afterthought I have had after writing the above post. Steven asks if I thought his college professors were irrational. Steven, your professor maybe not, but do note that 50%, read that again, 50% of the American public believe the earth is less than 10,00 years old.

50% of ther American public believes the bible scriptures over all of the known science in the world. YES! That is irrational.

[Progo35]

Hmm...I'm taking a cold, hard look....yes...hmmmmm...

Nope, still there!

[Joe Brummer]

Originally Posted by Progo35

Hmm...I'm taking a cold, hard look....yes...hmmmmm...

Nope, still there!

I am frustrated as I read your reply. I have a need for this subject to be taken seriously as I can see those replying are deeply connected to the subject. I am included in that statement as I take this very seriously. Thousands of people die daily in the world based on faith. I think and believe that makes this a but more serious than I find your reply. Would you be willing to add something to this? or Elaborate on your response?

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

I am not here to insult or offend, but make you take a cold, hard look. If faith is strong, then my challenge shouldn't be that big of a deal, should it?

Well, we could ignore you, but that wouldn't be polite. Seriously, your focus seems to be entirely on "theism." And although you don't really define how you use the term, the "theism" that you attack seems to me kind of a "straw man." I'm not sure I do believe in the god you say we should doubt.

Your assertion that my belief in God means that I must devalue Buddhist belief is not a correct assumption. My God doesn't need to be better than yours, nor does theism need to be better than atheism. You, however, seem to be insisting on the superiority of atheism.

I see lots of exploration of ideas in these forums. It may be that atheists have been underrepresented. I've not noticed much in the way of discomfort expressed about the participation of pagans and Budhhists (and I think we have a Hindu among us somewhere). I've not noticed any attempts to win converts, except from the occasional Fundamentalist visitor who seems to think we're all damned anyway.

So, I've not seen your critique of "panentheism" or say, Process Theology. These forms of theism are not the strawmen that you've picked on so far.

I believe we can and should promote the idea of "secular humanism." It is, indeed, a shame that Fundamentalists have made those words such a word of disparagement. I believe we can have a society where public policy is decided on the basis of "facts" that persons of all faiths, and no faith can agree upon. I believe that we can have school curricula that don't teach religious doctrine disguised as science (I'm thinking of the pseudo-science of "Intelligent Design").

I believe we can have a society where we don't play the game of "my faith" or "my non-faith" is better than yours. Sadly, Fundamentalists have made their superiority one of their "articles of faith," despite the fact that Christ taught humility. It does make them hard to live with. Their hostility to a secular society is a major problem in our society and political system right now. I don't see all religious faith posing the same problem, however.

And now that I take a look at this phrase one more time:

I am not here to insult or offend, but make you take a cold, hard look. If faith is strong, then my challenge shouldn't be that big of a deal, should it?

I think I need to say that this is a very insulting and offensive approach. It smacks of a superior attitude. You're just here to enlighten the unenlightened. We should be grateful! Frankly, I'm not all that insulted by this--I'm kind of amused.

I wouldn't want to "make" you do or believe anything. I'd just like us to coexist with our beliefs in a spirit of nonviolence.

Steven Webster

[Joe Brummer]

Steven,
While I agree the world you are painting a picture for is lovely, we have been trying to have that world for thousands of years. It has not happen nor do I believe it will happen in my lifetime.

Joe

[Progo35]

Moreover, Joe, I would like to point out that my first post in response to you contained a thoughtful account of several issues, to which you chose not to respond. If you wish for elaboration on my derisive comment, please look at that post and respond to it. I hereby challenge you to do so and thereby demonstrate the sincerity of your own desire for inquiry.

[Joe Brummer]

Originally Posted by Progo35

Moreover, Joe, I would like to point out that my first post in response to you contained a thoughtful account of several issues, to which you chose not to respond. If you wish for elaboration on my derisive comment, please look at that post and respond to it.

Your earlier post asked no questions. You stated what you believe about the newsweek articles. I did not read those article so I have no place commenting on them. I also don't know the atheists you are talking about so I can't comment on them.

Sorry, But I am not going to comment on posts that don't ask for my response. Is there a question you would like me to address? I am confused by your posts. I am not sure what response you were looking for?