Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

The Growing Clout of Atheists and Non-Believers

By Michelle Goldberg, The Guardian. Posted March 18, 2009.


Mobilized by the theocratic bombast of Bush-era Republicans, America's growing number of atheists are pushing for greater recognition.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In recent years, non-religious Americans have won a modicum of public acknowledgment. Not long ago, politicians insulted them with impunity or at best simply overlooked them. But the heightened public religious fervour of the Bush years led the country's infidels to organize as never before, turning atheist authors like Sam Harris into celebrities and opening lobbying offices in Washington, DC, just like religious interest groups do.

Politicians have responded. In his inaugural address, Barack Obama – doubtlessly realising that secularists constitute a big part of his base – described America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus ... and non-believers." Even Mitt Romney came to express second thoughts about leaving atheists and agnostics out of his high-profile campaign speech on faith. The United States is not Europe – it will likely be a long time before we have a publicly agnostic president – but it is becoming more tolerant of the godless.

It has to be: no religious group in the United States is growing as fast as those who profess no religion at all. The latest American Religious Identification Survey, which Trinity College published last week, shows that the number of non-religious Americans has nearly doubled since 1990, while the number of people who specifically self-identity as atheists or agnostics has more than tripled. An astonishing 30% of married Americans weren't wed in religious ceremonies, and 27% don't expect to have religious funerals. This suggests whole swaths of the culture are becoming secular, since one can assume that non-believers in religious families often acquiesce to traditional marriage rites and expect to be prayed over when they're dead.

The irony, though, is that even as the country becomes more secular, American politics are likely to remain shot through with aggressive piety. What we're seeing is not a northern European-style mellowing, but an increasing polarization. In his recent book Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, the sociologist Phil Zuckerman described the secularized countries of Scandinavia as places where religion is regarded with "benign indifference". There's consensus instead of culture war. That's not what's happening in the United States. Instead, the center is falling out.

According to the American Religious Identification Survey, Christianity is losing ground in the United States, but evangelical Christianity is not. Just over a third of Americans are still born-again. Meanwhile, the mainline churches, beacons of progressive, rationalistic faith – the kind that could potentially act as a bridge between religious and non-religious Americans – are shrinking. "These trends … suggest a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians," write the report's authors.

In some ways, there's a symbiotic relationship between evangelicals and secularists. The religious right emerged in response to a widespread sense of cultural grievance stemming from the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s. Today's newly organized atheists and agnostics were mobilized by the theocratic bombast of Bush-era Republicans. More than ever, one's religion is tied up with one's political choices rather than family history.

That means faith won't fade into the background. If European secularism is defined by disinterest in organized religion, American secularism is largely defined by opposition to it. Thus non-believers in the United States are increasingly becoming an organized interest group, demanding their share of civic respect. The more they want to escape organized religion, the less they can ignore it.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: christianity, united states, church and state, atheist, secular

Michelle Goldberg is the author of the New York Times bestseller Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A congregation of atheists?
Posted by: pelican beak on Mar 18, 2009 1:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not interested in joining any damn atheist organization.
------------
It seems Xtians often organize to communicate, "Look at me! Look at us! Check out our steeple! We're Xtians! We're good!"

Atheists won't organize for any of that ego stuff. But they might organize around the principle, "Knock it off. Get out of my face."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A congregation of atheists? Posted by: loneswaneast
» RE: A congregation of atheists? Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
» FFRF.org Posted by: ffrf.org
» RE: FFRF.org Posted by: BlueTigress
Thank God!
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Mar 18, 2009 2:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Atheists are finally organizing...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» :) :) Posted by: Bliss Doubt
On atheism
Posted by: redstarwraith on Mar 18, 2009 3:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
None of this is of course very surprising. A "war" it might be but, there needs to be accountability - the atheists certainly did not start this one! The previous commenter was correct in asserting that atheists are too diffuse to club together into any kind of organized backlash. I for instance consider myself an atheist and think Sam Harris's best-seller to be trash. I cringe at the notion of being lumped alongside an intellectual hack like him (as a professor, i refer to his book as an example on how NOT to make an argument). Still, I do not "attack" religion per se. I guess it could be said my approach is more 'Scandinavian'?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: On atheism Posted by: sam15a
» RE: On atheism Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: On atheism Posted by: amiabledave
The Atheist Experience on Austin cable TV and the web
Posted by: Perry Logan on Mar 18, 2009 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though not an atheist myself, I am very "atheist friendly." I thank my atheist brothers and sisters for helping to fight off the sustained, 30-year attack of religious loonies we've been suffering from.

Atheists seem to be as healthy for our political process as Christians are unhealthy. Here's hoping science will soon find a cure for rampant, slavering religious zealotry.

Austin, Texas, boasts what is generally regarded as the best cable-television station in the U.S. I do my own show under their auspices. The redoubtable Madeleine Murray O'Hair used to do a show from here.

Another chAustin program, which I've enjoyed for years, is "The Atheist Experience," where smart atheists take on dumb Christian callers.

The Chistians have yet to score a point. ;)

The good news is, you can now watch "The Atheist Experience" on the web. You can even call in and debate them. Be the first to prove the skeptics wrong!


Then there's me, making like Jesus and Forgiving the Neocons

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tax the churches...
Posted by: EJW on Mar 18, 2009 3:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read somewhere that if all the churches used all their wealth in the effort that no one anywhere would be hungry.

Well, maybe the 'crater' is getting them....

I am not anti-religion, I am just offended by so many of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tax the churches... Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Tax the churches... Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
Not a groupie-but glad some are organizing
Posted by: solitarysherlockian on Mar 18, 2009 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a non-group atheist--I won't probably join, but glad that someone is trying to say that not believing in magic isn't crazy--it is the sign of a true intelligence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

those who want to make government serve their religion should consider
Posted by: Suzon on Mar 18, 2009 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that there would be one huge power struggle between religions. The founding fathers would have wanted to avoid the religious divisions which still exist today in Northern Ireland.

Someone said that expecting human beings to be able to describe "the creator" is like expecting dogs to be able to describe people.

By the way, the term "fundamentalist" applied to Christian is SO wrong!

Jesus wasn't about fear or "doing what it takes" (as a retired minister urged about electing W). Isn't it time to use the term "neo-fundamentalist"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Inquisition and Religious War, Posted by: oregoncharles
Atheists organizing? For what purpose?
Posted by: rcase on Mar 18, 2009 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Atheists organizing? For what purpose? I suspect atheists are becoming more vocal because evangelical Christians represent a threat to them. Christians, after all, believe there is purpose in life. They believe every person has dignity. They believe there is life after death. They believe in feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and clothing the naked. They also want to share God's love. Can anyone imagine atheists getting together to build create homeless shelters? This is not to say that atheists are not opposed to caring for people. It is just that they want the government to do it. When I meet an atheist that shows compassion then I will give them some respect. Mostly atheists are just angry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» For what purpose you ask Posted by: Karina
» RE: For what purpose you ask Posted by: iolanthe
» Athiests for Humanity Posted by: pdxjoe
» You're a tool. Posted by: EHarold
» HOLIER THAN THOU Posted by: ffrf.org
What is happening here is not exactly clear
Posted by: solrev on Mar 18, 2009 4:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An astonishing 30% of married Americans weren't wed in religious ceremonies, and 27% don't expect to have religious funerals.

“When asked to specify their religious affiliation, roughly 15% of those surveyed reported no preference. Only 8.2% responded this way in 1990.” atheistrev.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lord Willing
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Mar 18, 2009 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why do Liberals don't want you to believe in anything higher or greater than yourself but themselves. Praying to Washington won't get you anywhere but a preview of the Hell you'll be living as your soul burns. You faith will be tested and I'm not talking having a freaking flat tire on your way to a job interview and when things fall apart its great when "non believers" come around and day "looks like you an't praying enough" or "God doesn't love you I guess" with out failing to realize, The Lord is not there to fix you a sandwich, he is there as a internal guiding light

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Too bad Iraqis don't know Posted by: Karina
» RE: Lord Willing Posted by: Crazy H
» The Goodwill of Men Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: The Goodwill of Men Posted by: sekfetenmet
» RE: Lord Willing Posted by: iolanthe
» I dont drive a Prius or own a Mac Book Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» You're not smug, you say? Posted by: Curio
» RE: Lord Willing Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Lord Willing Posted by: aussidawg
» its not that simple Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» On the contrary Posted by: Curio
» RE: Lord Willing Posted by: masthead
» RE: Lord Willing Posted by: tawny6812
» RE: Lord Willing Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
Guess Whose Inviting Jesus Freaks to Dinner?
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Mar 18, 2009 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack Obama!

Recent press reports reveal the veteran of the jeremiah wright school of logic regular converses with a group of evangelical ministers, white and black.

while the primary subject is often "social justice" prayer is involved too. and what makes people social justice experts who believe literally that the Bible is the word of 'god', even if we know it was written by hundreds if not thousands of reporters, priests, observers, poets, madmen, and royal flunkies in Judaea.

maybe god and his on-earth delegates will tell barack when to pull out of iraq; like about the same time god was going to tell that great scholar and historian george w. bush, when to flee Babylon.

Shades of Billy Graham!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can't the believers and non-believers just find some common ground and unite?
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Mar 18, 2009 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And then they wonder why it's so easy to distract the nation with social issue !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Scapegoating and Criticism Posted by: pdxjoe
» "Yours is far more guilty..." Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Beck says, "Shut Up!" Posted by: GuitarBill
monotheism is unevolved
Posted by: frankly1 on Mar 18, 2009 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To view "atheism" as another religious group is like calling a healthy person someone who suffers from wellness. The monotheistic perspective is inflicted on children like toilet training. The pupose is control!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Doesn't matter at all
Posted by: sunnywater on Mar 18, 2009 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin.

The scientific attitude one should assume towards any given subject is whether it's true.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Doesn't matter at all Posted by: sekfetenmet
» RE: Doesn't matter at all Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: Doesn't matter at all Posted by: sekfetenmet
» RE: Doesn't matter at all Posted by: sunnywater
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
And about damn time too!
Posted by: fsuthai on Mar 18, 2009 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one atheist that isn't going to be joining any type of philosophical or religious type group but I do feel that atheists, as a whole, are more attentive to "what's really going on in this world" and have greater tendency to question news stories, authorities, "reliable sources", etc. I send nasty emails, sign letters of protest, and always vote...even when the choices are whittled down by the current greedy sources of evil...to "bad and worse"! I'm also aware enough to know that the only probable progress from such activity will be my feeling a little better for having made the effort. It's nice to know that there are lots of other free thinkers out there but I don't need any group approval to feel secure in my 50 year old non-religious convictions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And about damn time too! Posted by: pithaughn
» RE: And about damn time too! Posted by: aussidawg
Of Evangelicals and Secularists
Posted by: pdxjoe on Mar 18, 2009 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In some ways, there's a symbiotic relationship between evangelicals and secularists. The religious right emerged in response to a widespread sense of cultural grievance stemming from the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s."

The first sentence here is very true. However, this relationship should be spoken of in broader terms of religious fanaticism and liberal multi-culturalism, lest like good Thacherites we denounce the social quality of these social movements and pretend that the so-called "culture wars" come down to a bunch of individuals bickering over their "personal beliefs."

That brings me to the latter sentence quoted above. It doesn't go far enough, and gives too much credit for the rise of modern religious fanaticism to secularism, liberal multi-culturalism and "social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s"---the latter of which I can only imagine points to movements about civil rights, the sexual liberation, feminist liberation.

Talk about ME-generation---how self-absorbed are liberals? Religious fanatics are upset because liberal women stepped out of the home, because racism is unacceptable, because a transgendered person became the mayor of some city? Are you kidding me? You know who talks about this bull? The Rush Limbaughs of this country. You know who he is? Not one of the poor son-of-a-bitches to whom he preaches. I come from a fairly conservative family and consider myself neither liberal nor conservative, nor some hodge-podge called "centrist." They parrot the Rush Limbaughs to be sure, but who would argue with a parrot? You can't argue with them on cultural issues, because their grievances are not really about these damned culture wars. They don't really know it, and the proud liberals who assume that they are the natural targets of religious ire know it even less.

People are upset everywhere because they have no power, and they have no power because they are poor. Sure, white, Christian males have relative power among the poor, but there is nothing that will fuck your chances of wielding power like being poor. Try being Rush Limbaugh without a dime.

What is missed by the latter statement quoted above is the economic dimension and how religious fanaticism (AND liberal multi-culturalism) responds to destabilization and disenfranchisement caused by capitalism---by the appropriation of social wealth and its MATERIAL implications.

If liberalization were really at the root of religious fanaticism, then every time someone asserted (I think quite rightly) that their (homosexual) marriage did not undermine anyone else's marriage they would be a hypocrite, if not a out-and-out liar. Freud said that anxiety is the only affect that does not deceive, and Lacan after him said that anxiety always has its object. If the enfranchisement of minorities of all sorts doesn't and can't undermine the freedom of religious fanatics, then what REALLY bothers them so much about the state of the world? They may even say it's your gay-marriage that has turned their world up-side-down, but you KNOW that's not possible, so why do you believe it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Athiests in the Oval Office
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Mar 18, 2009 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An atheist is someone who believes there is no God and an agnostic is someone who does not believe there is a God. If that distinction were not confusing enough, the matter becomes even more difficult with the realization that the notion of God is not very well defined.

Some people think of God as an old man with a gray beard and others refer to God as "she". Is he (or she) white or black or is this question meaningful? Some people believe God is a trinity and many more cannot even make sense of that concept.

Certainly many people do not believe God is a conscious being, but rather some natural force in the universe (even people who believe in the old man with a gray beard will try to gain converts by appealing to the beauty and complexity in our world).

So suppose someone is willing to admit that, yes the world is very beautiful and complex and wants to call this complexity by the name "God". Is that person a believer or an atheist or maybe an agnostic? What if that person wanted to call his (or her) religion by the name Deism? Would such a person be an atheist?

Arguably this has happened in the history of this country and by this argument, some might interpret a number of our past presidents to have been deists and therefore atheists. These may well include

* George Washington
* Thomas Jefferson
* James Madison
* James Monroe
* John Tyler
* Abraham Lincoln

A number of other presidents did not have strong religious ties, including

* James Madison
* James Monroe
* Martin Van Buren
* William Henry Harrison
* John Tyler
* Zachary Taylor
* Andrew Johnson
* Ulysses S. Grant
* Rutherford B. Hayes
* Chester Arthur

and maybe some of them should be considered to have been atheists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Athiests in the Oval Office Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Athiests in the Oval Office Crikey! Posted by: photon's feather
If there truly is a God a just God -----
Posted by: symcokid on Mar 18, 2009 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he wouldn't want to take any credit for the hell hole this country turned into and he wouldn't have told the white European invaders, "I want you to have this land"! He sure as well wouldn't be allowing this US to war on a whim invade other sovereign countries and impose our will and so called democracy on them!

I don't even think a just God would allow lies like we shot down Iran's drone over Iraq because it wasn't flying safely and it was illegal, at the same time we have dozens flying over Pakistan/Afghanistan and elsewhere all flying safely and legally, my ass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MESSAGE FROM GODLESS DRONE Posted by: americansheep
» RE: MESSAGE FROM GOD Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» Given the state of our world... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
I'm a progressive Christian who ...
Posted by: jimswanson on Mar 18, 2009 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA
“The Bush League of Nations” [for FREE download of entire $25.95 progressive book]

I’m a progressive Christian who is sickened by the Christian Reich’s upside-down version of Christ and Christianity—Pro-Rich and Pro-War—and the GOP’s war on the U.S. Constitution, including the separation of church and state.

When working on progressive causes (pro-LGBT; anti-war; racial, social and economic justice, etc.) I find that I have much more in common with my atheist friends than I do with rightwing Christian friends and relatives.

Atheist and agnostic activists should know that most progressive pastors share this perspective, and that you are natural allies. That’s the way I see it.

Thanks to America’s warmongering Christians, being “a Christian” has become less attractive throughout the world, and I empathize with the increasing number of Americans—especially our younger folk—who have no use for Christianity.

As for me, I have chosen to stay and fight to reclaim my faith from those who stole it and use it to support a rightwing imperial agenda.

Christianity remains a powerful weapon in American politics, and we abandon this weapon to the extreme right at our peril.

This and much more is discussed in, "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP’s War on Iraq and America," by James A. Swanson (2008, CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages).

As a gift to patriotic believers and nonbelievers everywhere, the entire book can be downloaded for FREE at “The Bush League of Nations”.

I ask for nothing in return, except that you consider using it to help restore and build America. And, if you are so inclined, please pass along the good word. I’d appreciate that.

Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
[Activist, author, entrepreneur, business executive, Peace Corps volunteer, North Dakota native, MIT graduate, Stanford JD/MBA.]
“The Bush League of Nations”
www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE download of entire $25.95 book]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jesus was a socialist. Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: I'm a progressive Christian who ... Posted by: photon's feather
Even Atheism may be popular with God
Posted by: peacelf on Mar 18, 2009 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
said Henry David Thoreau in his paradoxical fashion. While there was more humor than truth in his statement, it helps us understand the transformation that is going on in american Christian politics.

Evangelical Christians' ties to right wing politics is more political manipulation by the likes of Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, et al. that preys on religious ignorance and fear. Evangelical ministers and their highly vocal leaders understand how easily scriptures can be converted into "prophesy" of doom and gloom, transforming Jesus into a nihilist. It's unlikely the fearful will let go of their anxieties until they are educated and enlightened.

There's the rub. Atheism has it's evangelicals who equally spread fear, even hatred, toward "Others" while professing an elitist superiority that sickens me. I'm talking about Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, among others. When they make documentaries that mock people's ignorance, call people names, threaten annihilation of religious groups, promote war and violence, I'm not down with that. It's just as dangerous as the right wing Christians' apocalypse.

Fortunately, there are Christians who have found a middle ground of peace, charity, compassion, justice and hope. Rather than mocking all Christians, we should be supporting, indeed, reaching out to those who share highly moral and ethical values with us. I could care less if they believe in the great and powerful Oz, as long as they want peace, equality, social and economic justice and they work to build hope in the world. I won't let God stand in the way of those ideals.

Peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abuse of the Language
Posted by: oregoncharles on Mar 18, 2009 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Secularist" does NOT mean "anti-religious."

It means "supporting the SEPARATION of politics and religion." "Secular" actually means "outside of religion," as in the ordinary functions of government or business.

Even the most devout may be "secularist," if they're smart, because it PROTECTS RELIGION from the corruptions of political power.

To be very specific: The US, with its strict separation of church and state, is far more religious, in our personal lives and even our politics, than the European countries that have established religions.

Maybe we shouldn't be so damned secular. Apparently establishing religion is a much better way of disempowering it. (Historically, it also leads to massive bloodshed. But Europe appears to have learned its lesson.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I live in rural Oregon
Posted by: willymack on Mar 18, 2009 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where people are judged by which church they attend on Saturday or Sunday. The little town I live near has more churches than you can shake a stick at. I personally think we could do with more saloons, but that's just me, and I could be wrong. Anyone who thinks outside what's considered to be right and proper, religiously speaking, that is, is called a pagan. The pathetic numbskulls don't even know what the word means, but it sounds satisfyingly evil. If any real progress is made toward rational thinking, recognition of Scientific Method, and the REALITY of evolution, this place will be dead last to acknowlege it. I shudder to think of what it's like in the bible belt. On the other hand, maybe this place is it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I live in rural Oregon Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Really? What part? Posted by: oregoncharles
I used to be a non-questioning Christian...
Posted by: Gisele on Mar 18, 2009 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
until I could no longer ignore what I was feeling, and Isaiah's verse kept repeating itself over and over. "Come, let us reason together." Once I committed myself to asking questions without fear, and to find answers that only seemd to generate more questions, I began to find a little more peace with things that bothered me.

A Christian is told to believe, not to question, don't think for yourself, and especially if you're a woman - just accept whatever is given to you. It made no sense to me. I could not reconcile the verse that says "God Is Love"...with what had happened to all the tribes that were murdered whilst the Jews were being led to Israel. I could not accept that though a woman is half of the human experiment, we were hated by the early church founders. Tertullian, an early Roman church founder wrote to the female members of the Christian community:
. . . you are the devil's gateway. . . you are she who persuaded him whom the devil did not dare attack. . . . Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on your sex lives on in this age; the guilt, necessarily, lives on too." And we wonder why women have been treated so badly through time?!

I could not accept that God cannot be spoken about in a real and personal manner. We're made after "their" likeness, and "their" image...therefore; all that is in us, is in "them". But who is "their" and "them?" We hate, God hates, we love, He loves, we display jealousy, do does He. Something was wrong.

Then one day I realized we are not even close to the truth, as it relates to the Bible. It came down to us after being compiled by the early Roman church, all that is in it was chosen by them...something they were very quick to lay claim to not long ago. As with much history (which I consider much of the Bible to be), the truth is that of the victor, with little or nothing of the vanquished. I believed I had to go back prior to the compilation of the bible, to find the earliest possible writings...the ones that were forbidden and supposedly destroyed. I found a vast number of writings to sort through, but none gave me the answers I was looking for. Until I found the Nag Hammadi library, after spending a lot of time wondering why the words "I and the FATHER are One,"..."Our FATHER in heaven"...kept coming at me day after day.

Jesus never said a single word he didn't mean, he spoke in parables most of the time...so when He said the above it was meant to be clear. We are told no one has ever seen the face of God and lived, yet Israel fought him in hand to hand combat for the better part of a night, Abraham saw him. Jesus also said "No one comes to the FATHER, but through me." After hours and hours of reading, digging and re-reading...I have come to the conclusion that The Father and God are not the same being. Though the Gnostic Gospels clearly say God IS...they also say we are led astray in our thinking. I believe we have been - and very deliberately.

So where does that put me? I'm not an atheist, agnostic, or Christian (by their standards, most would have me shot for speaking as I have!)...I'm a seeker. All I want is the REAL truth...something I'm sure we all want no matter what "brand" we seem forced to wear when it comes to religion.

As far as I'm concerned nothing has damaged human relationships, world peace, and understanding as much as "religion" has both in the past, and today. As enlightened as we supposedly are in this day and age - we have not yet learned that every seeker will find their own truth, and that is the truth we live and die with. Can we be big enough to allow others the same privilege?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone is God; There's Nothing Else to Be
Posted by: thornwolf on Mar 18, 2009 11:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So we don't need no steenking religion, ok?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this country wasn't founded by Christians (part 1)
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 18, 2009 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1787 when the framers excluded all mention of God from the Constitution, they were widely denounced as immoral and the document was denounced as godless, which is precisely what it is. Opponents of the Constitution challenged ratifying conventions in nearly every state, calling attention to Article VI, Section 3: “No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

An anti-federalist in North Carolina wrote: “The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. Pagans, Deists and Mohammedans might obtain office among us.” Amos Singletary of Massachussetts, one of the most outspoken critics of the Constitution, said that he “hoped to see Christians (in power), yet by the Constitution, a papist or an infidel was as eligible as they.”

Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 wrote that “there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief in the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.” Martin’s report shows that a “Christian nation” faction had its say during the convention, and that its views were consciously rejected.

The United States Constitution is a completely secular political document. It begins “We the people,” and contains no mention of “God,” “Jesus,” or “Christianity.” Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as the “no religious test” clause (Article VI), and “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (First Amendment)

The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “so help me God” or any requirement to swear on a Bible (Article II, Section 1). The words “under God” did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them.

Similarly, “In God we Trust” was absent from paper currency before 1956, though it did appear on some coins beginning in 1864. The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is “E Pluribus Unum” (“Of Many, One”) celebrating plurality and diversity.

In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington’s presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

We are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to “dissolve the political bonds,” not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based upon the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. The Declaration deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, etc., and doesn’t discuss religion at all. The references to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence” in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist, opposed to Christianity and the supernatural.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this country wasn't founded by Christians (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 18, 2009 11:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. However, Jefferson admitted, “In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man and that other parts are the fabric of very inferior minds...” It was Thomas Jefferson who established the separation of church and state. Jefferson was deeply suspicious of religion and of clergy wielding political power.

Jefferson helped create the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, incurring the wrath of Christians by his fervent defense of toleration of atheists: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Jefferson advocated a “wall of separation” between church and state not to protect the church from government intrusion, but to preserve the freedom of the people:

“I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest morality that has ever been taught;” he observed, “but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invested by priestcraft and established by kingcraft, constituting a conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious liberties of mankind.”

Jefferson and the founding fathers were products of the Age of Enlightenment. Their world view was based upon Deism, secularism, and rationalism.

“The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight,” wrote Jefferson. “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter...we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this...”

As late as 1820, Jefferson was convinced everyone in the United States would die a Unitarian. Jefferson, Madison and Paine’s writings indicate that America was never intended to be a Christian theocracy. “I have sworn upon the altar of God,” wrote Jefferson, “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson wrote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Similarly, in an 1824 letter to John Cartwright, Jefferson expressed anger at judges who had based rulings on their belief that Christianity is part of the common law. Cartwright had written a book critical of these judges, and Jefferson was glad to see it. Observed Jefferson, “The proof of the contrary, which you have produced, is controvertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed.” Jefferson challenged “the best-read lawyer to produce another script of authority for this judicial forgery” and concluded, “What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this country wasn't founded by Christians (part 3)
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 18, 2009 11:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As president, Jefferson put his “wall of separation” theory into practice. He refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and fasting, insisting that they violate the First Amendment. As early as 1779, Jefferson proposed a bill before the Virginia legislature that would have established a series of elementary schools to teach the basics—reading, writing, and arithmetic. Jefferson even suggested that “no religious reading, instruction, or exercise shall be prescribed or practiced, inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.” Jefferson did not regard public schools as the proper agent to form children’s religious views.

As president, James Madison also put his separationist philosophy into action. He vetoed two bills he believed would violate church-state separation. The first was an act incorporating the Episcopal Church in the District of Columbia that gave the church the authority to care for the poor. The second was a proposed land grant to a Baptist church in Mississippi. Had Madison, the father of the Constitution, believed that all the First Amendment was intended to do was bar setting up a state church, he would have approved these bills. Instead, he vetoed both, and in his veto messages to Congress explicitly stated that he was rejecting the bills because they violated the First Amendment.

Later in his life, James Madison came out against state-paid chaplains, writing, “The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.” He also concluded that his calling for days of prayer and fasting during his presidency had been unconstitutional.

In an 1819 letter to Robert Walsh, Madison wrote, “the number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.” In an undated essay called the “Detached Memoranda,” written in the early 1800s, Madison wrote, “Strongly guarded...is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States.”
I
In 1833 Madison responded to a letter sent to him by Jasper Adams. Adams had written a pamphlet titled “The Relations of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States,” which tried to prove that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Madison wrote back: “In the papal system, government and religion are in a manner consolidated, and that is found to be the worst of government.”

Madison, like Jefferson, was confident that separation of church and state would protect both the institutions of government and religion. Late in his life, Madison wrote to a Lutheran minister about this, declaring, “A due distinction...between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations...A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this country wasn't founded by Christians (part 4)
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 18, 2009 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the early part of the 19th century, a general understanding existed that the government should not promote religion, or favor one religion over another. In 1825, Congress passed legislation requiring post offices to handle mail on Sundays. Many people protested, arguing that this violated the Christian Sabbath. Congress debated the matter for a few years before deciding in 1829 to retain Sunday mail handling. Senator Richard Johnson of Kentucky wrote that the government had no business favoring Sunday as a state-mandated day of rest:

“It is not the legitimate province of the Legislature to determine what religion is true, or what is false,” Johnson observed. “Our Government is a civil and not a religious institution. Our Constitution recognizes in every person the right to choose his own religion, and to enjoy it freely, without molestation. Whatever may be the religious sentiments of citizens, and however variant, they are alike entitled to protection from the Government, so long as they do not invade the rights of others...They (Sunday mail handling opponents) appear, in many instances, to lay it down as an axiom, that the practice is a violation of the law of God. Should Congress, in their legislative capacity, adopt the sentiment, it would establish the principle that the Legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of God. It would involve a legislative decision in a religious controversy, and on a point in which good citizens may honestly differ in opinion, without disturbing the peace of society, or endangering its liberties. If this principle is introduced, it will be impossible to define its bounds.

“Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for violation of what Government denominated the law of God. To prevent a similar train of evils in this country, the Constitution has wisely withheld from our Government the power of defining the divine law.”

for further information, please read Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State by Robert Boston (Prometheus Books: 2003).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

repeats problems with original survey, and...
Posted by: kenhymes on Mar 18, 2009 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Article repeats the survey that's been going around the press, and thus repeats the problems with it. There are multiple changes happening at once in the US.

First, Christians coming from outside the US tend to be Pentecostal or non-denominational (what many call by the misleading term "evangelical," a word with too many meanings to be descriptive of a particular group) and sometimes Catholic. So the mainline church as a PERCENTAGE of US Christians is decreasing far more than it is shrinking in numbers, which it is, but less so than the survey implies.

Second, the focus on percentages glosses over the many more nuanced changes happening WITHIN each denomination. Across the board, with the exception of groups specifically founded to promote biblical literalism, denominations are becoming more theologically and politically progressive (in line with the rest of the country in other areas). Dobson and his ilk have lost huge amounts of political, social, and financial capital in the space of a few years.

Third, the survey cannot measure changes in honesty. In other words, there may be no change (or a lot of change) in the actual views of Americans, but simply change in the willingness to state them plainly. If true, this is a good thing from any point of view.

Finally, I ask this. The author writes that "atheists and non-believers" (anyone care to parse the difference?) are seeking more clout. I see little evidence of this outside the blogs, but if true, clout to do what? How is political clout wielded from a specifically atheist viewpoint any less of an intrusion into political and civil life than the unfortunate influence of right-wing "christians" over the last thirty years?
What is the agenda? If the pages of Alternet are any indication, it will be an utterly incoherent agenda, dominated by the belief that religion is a mental disorder (what an odd mixture of free-thinking and medical authoritarianism that phrase encapsulates), and by an ahistorical, college freshman level analysis of religion's place in human history.

You think we're nuts, we get it. But the sad thing is, you don't even know who "we" are. Where I live, there is only one group working for affordable housing and better access to services for poor children: IMPACT, a coalition of churches, a mosque and a synagogue and a secular humanist group. That's the history of the successful left in the US - coalition building between Jewish social activists, progressive Christians, and secular liberals and radicals. Throwing brickbats at people's beliefs is the opposite of helpful. Lumping all belief in invisible things into one pejorative category is about as progressive as the gulags.
What about Native Americans who hold animistic beliefs? Are they all nuts? Quakers? MLK? Dorothy Day? The Berrigans? The Sanctuary movement in the 80's? All mentally deranged, without redeeming social value?

A strict belief in empiricism, in a reality that is not socially constructed, which contains no ineffable elements, in a science which will solve all our problems - this is a recipe for authoritarianism, not for justice and freedom.

Who cares how people get to an understanding of the need for changes in the way we live and work and play? We should be seeking common ground, not staking out purist areas of correct ideology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yup. Nuts. Posted by: factbased
» RE: Yup. Nuts. Posted by: krock
Though I'm a...
Posted by: bobtr900 on Mar 18, 2009 12:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Christian I do not like the Bush Repub Christians. Given the choice of spending time with the Repub Christians or Atheists/Agnostics I'll choose the Atheists/Agnostics(A/As) ever time. I just can't stand hate from Christians. I totally get along with Atheists/Agnostics much better than I do with the so called Christians.

A/As always let me be me, and accept me as I am. I get respect, and that s all I need and what I truly want, above all else. I also get along great with Jews and Blacks--religious or not--because they have been so discriminated against and so often hated that they are respectful of the feelings of others, and me.

It's just that simple. No one should have trouble understanding that; A/As, Jews and Blacks never have trouble understanding that, but Christians very often do. Bush Repub Christians(Catholics, my religion, and evangelical fundies) always do.

If I get respect, I give it, usually in copious amounts.

Here in Ohio, we had to vote for or against a statewide lottery. The Black ministers in Cleveland said they were against it, and that was good enough for me, I voted as they recommended. I was absolutely convinced money/greed was Not their concern, human values were their ONLY concern. The lottery money grubbers --Repubs, I'll bet-- lost that election.

With me, people values always come first. Anyone who tramples on peoples rights and freedoms is corrupt, craven and depraved, as far as I'm concerned.

Bush, and his Repub Theo-Fascism, is/are satanic, as far as I'm concerned. Jesus spoke of peace, love, tolerance and do unto others.... Exactly what is so difficult to understand about that.

The Bush Family Rethugs and their associated Religious Right, including my own religion, are hateful and corrupt in their endless support of Repub Fascism, which I call Theo-Fascism. They hate and kill others for corporate and rich peoples profits.

Blacks,though they are Southern Baptists for the most part, were never part of the Bush Repub hate machine. May God bless them. Jews were never part of the Bush Repub hate machine. May God bless them. Methodists, in Nov. of '05 and again in Nov of 07 clearly disavowed themselves of the Bush Repub hate machine. May God bless them. And clearly, most Atheists/Agnostics were never a part of the Bush Repub hate machine. May God bless them.

The Bush Repubs espouse Fascism and what I can only think to call Dark Christianity, or maybe it's evil or satanic christianity. It's definitely what I call Theo-Fascism.

The Bush Repubs can believe anything they want, just do not try to force it on everybody else. I actually get physically ill when they do that. And I mean physically ill. My stomach starts churning, my blood pressure rises and I get angry; very, very angry. And I've had eight years of nonstop gut wrenching anger. I totally reject these people and everything they stand for. And that includes my own religion.

Were it not for my fellow posters on Alternet, Salon, HuffPo and MOJO I would have died. Such was the level of my distress and anger. I could not engage in violent attacks against the Repubs because that is not my way. That would make me just like them. Killers, for power and profit. As well as the scum of America.

On many occasions I camped with bears so close -- just outside my thin nylon backpackers tent-- that I could hear them breathing. I was alert but not afraid. As a motorcyclist, on one occasion, I came across a motorcycle gang and stopped and had a few beers with them. They were well armed. I was not afraid, alert, but not afraid. I have a terminal illness. I'm not afraid.

However, in the last eight years I have frequently felt fear due to the Bush administration, and their Religious Right. They injected fear right into my mind. A very primitive mental fear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Though I'm a... Posted by: wint
Bull....
Posted by: US Citizen 07 on Mar 18, 2009 12:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I'm seeing is a bunch of fundies that have the view, "If you don't think OUR way, you're atheist!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Atheist are very organized - you aren't supposed to know
Posted by: krock on Mar 18, 2009 3:54 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Steve Allen left behind most of his resources to establish a Center for Atheism. It's in Los Angeles and isn't just an organization about 'believing in nothing'.

I was pretty chagrined to hear the president I voted for call me a "non-believer" and one of "those of No-Faith" - and these were meant as inclusive terms. This represented a major sea-change, supposedly, in the way we listen to tax-payers. I wasn't chagrined by Bush - because people like that don't even hide that they want to apply a standard of "One rule for us and another rule for the rest of you" to the entire world.

The fact that Obama was making a huge concession by including all us "non-believers" - a term usually reserved for "the streets will run red with the blood of..." and that this was a big victory was a little disappointing. I was hoping for a different level of discussion.

I'm not involved in organized atheism personally. But they do a lot of good. They offer people with substance-abuse problems, a place to go and get treatment. They offer people insight into practical ways to solve problems like domestic abuse, they try to help the poor, the whole shebang. It's just a place to get help without having to allow the "Jesus" meme into your brain to get help. But most of all they make the solid argument, every day, that we can't continue to pay into a power structure that is so exclusive, that fights people who've never done them harm, and that fights science. We just can't fight science. We can't move at the whim of science, but we can't fight observation.

This isn't about "non-belief". I believe strongly in humanity. I believe in the human super-organism. I am a cell in something much bigger, we all are. That large creature we make up has enormous power. It's an observable, measurable power. I have FAITH in us.

So often when I talk to people on the need to get serious about ending hypocrisy in this country and addressing the world's problems, I hear back "look, these things are never going to change, it's all been happening for millenia, and it's genetically embedded in us."

Certainly it is, of course it is. But the human super-organism is capable of much much more. It has love, and compassion, and courage, and yes, faith. All written deep into your code.

Now this isn't something you may hear in 'organized atheism' - but I don't know. I keep loose tabs on them because I like that they are mostly a good works organization. But what I have is Faith, and Belief, in humanity. And it's the kind of faith and belief that really requires my active participation. If I don't spread 'the word' about this country, if I don't 'spread the word' about how we can end hunger, then the Super-organism might continue to behave the way it does.

I have faith that it is meant for better things, and that I can do something to affect that change.

Why don't people know this about organized atheism, or even the about the level of organization by these like-minded people? Because a lot of open-minded people who are sick of having their civil rights voted away might just walk into a center one day and take a pamphlet. Yes, there are pamphlets.

In L.A. the center has a very successful alternative theater. Mary-Lynn Rajskub works there on a weekly basis, people from the Daily Show play there weekly, people from most of your favorite HBO shows, people from the show Arrested Development play there... look the list goes on and on of people who you can see live, in some of the most hilarious shit you are likely to see. Don't take my word for it, check them out.

THE STEVE ALLEN THEATER
Center for Inquiry-West
4773 Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, CA 90027

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many years ago while helping a customer in the normal
Posted by: abusedbypenguins on Mar 18, 2009 7:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
course of doing my job and going that little bit extra to make sure she was completely satisfied she called me a "good christian". I was insulted. I treat everyone as I would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect because I am human as are all of you. I was 5 going on 6 when I woke up to the fact that santa clause, the easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc. were myths. Wasn't much of a stretch to see that religion wasn't any different. Which is why, at the age of 8 the penguins kicked me out of catholic school. Public school, in comparison was wonderful. No religious crap. Which is of course, what all religion is-crap. I grew up, why can't the religious crazies grow up? Some wierd fixation on the sky daddy. I have come close a few times to accidental termination and prayer wasn't an option, only survival. So, yes, I have been in that foxhole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are escapists who have lost our way for centuries!!
Posted by: Tishpierce on Mar 18, 2009 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think when we divide the electorate into atheists and churchgoers, we leave a lot of us out. I don't consider myself an atheist, nor do I go to any church, which I think is the healthiest thing to do. I prefer to say that I do not know if there is a God or not, or maybe I would say that I believe there is a God but certainly not the God of religion. When we give our intelligence and our minds over to any organization, especially religion we can count on the fact that we are "indoctrinated" by that particular belief system. The reason that we have not progressed very much out of that mentality and the kind of thinking that we have had for centuries is because we do not know ourselves. Our lives are busy and we have no idea how to change for the better. Instead, we have all kinds of escapes because our desire is to forget ourselves. When we have chosen never to really know ourselves, we are escaping into slavery. All our conflicts, ambitions are very small and very petty. So, we want to identify ourselves with something. If it is not God, it is the state, ...the government, the people who rule, the society. If it is not that, it is utopia, something very far away, a marvelous society that we are going to build in the future; in the building of it we destroy many people, but that does not really matter to people. If we do not believe in any of these, we believe in having a good time and we forget ourselves in material things. Such a person is called a materialist, who forgets himself in material things. And the spiritual person forgets himself in the spiritual world. Both kinds of people have the same intention, which is to lose himself or herself in books, in meditating, or to lose oneself in some kind of acton. The desire to lose oneself is linked to feeling very small and insignificant. As we grow older we may realize how little substance there is in this kind of life. The same story goes on as one pursues something else in order to forget oneself. Since everyone from every walk of life wants to forget himself or herself, you begin to invent, to have extraordinary beliefs. The stupid ones want to forget themselves so they follow people, they have gurus who tell them what to do. The ambitious ones want to forget themselves in doing something. Since we do not really stop to see this picture that we have painted for ourselves we find something greater with which to be identified. Escape from the present is what makes for slavery. On the other hand to escaper collectively is the highest form of security. In facing what actually is, we can do something about it; but to take flight from the way things really are inevitably makes us stupid and dull, slaves to sensation and confusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What???
Posted by: hilly7 on Mar 18, 2009 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Athiests have always been pretty organized. I'm trying to figure whichj is worse, godless or the wrong god. Bush isn't exactly the type of Christian that would have been called a Christians 30 years ago. Those of us who are, are just watching the works of The New World Order. I'd just bet they have a god just waiting for those who haven't got one. Lub up, we're gonna need it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Benign Indifference
Posted by: Xynyx on Mar 18, 2009 8:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
religion is regarded with "benign indifference". There's consensus instead of culture war. That's not what's happening in the United States. Instead, the center is falling out.

And why is "benign indifference" the center?

So:

There's this group of people who think that they can use knowledge and careful, rigorous experimentation and observation (just for the sake of argument, we'll call that the scientific process) to help extend knowledge, thereby increasing its availability for the myriad purposes for which knowledge is useful. They tend to get some limited amount of support from society from time to time, but are most often required to work for corporations seeking profit.

There's another group of people who don't understand the scientific process or don't appreciate its conclusions or just don't understand how to take proper advantage of it, so, instead, they have worked hard to enhance their skills at making shit up and persuading other people that they have all the answers. These people frequently (or is it always?) get tax-exempt status, all sorts of monetary donations from the dupes they sway, make public pronouncements that adversely affect the lives of other people, and get far more recognition and public attention than they deserve. Sometimes, they even act, through the institutions they create, to defend and further enable criminal behavior.

Somehow, people who don't concern themselves over such contemptible behavior are to be considered benignly indifferent, rather than just apathetic.

If society needs everyone to contribute, how is it these apathetic turds should be praised for their opinions? And since when is being in the middle defined as good?

On the one hand, we have people who are rooted in the real world and who are (usually) concerned about real-world problems. On the other hand, we have the people who make shit up. If you find yourself standing in the middle ground between these two camps, you're probably a dumbass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Benign Indifference Posted by: zola77
Atheists and Non-Believers
Posted by: annie1 on Mar 19, 2009 12:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only thing to remember is why other Nations have fallen - and we're starting to head in a direction that spells real trouble.

Non-believers + materialism + immorality along with bad leadership = disaster. Thanks Annie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TO BE OR NOT TO BE=ATHESIS/GOD/BIBLES
Posted by: foxxx on Mar 22, 2009 10:55 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE WORD ATHESIS CAME FROM MINISTERS/PRIESTS,ETC. THAT COULD'NT TALK PEOPLE INTO COMING INTO THEIR BUILDINGS FOR WORSHIP, SO THEY GOT MAD AND TOLD ALL THAT WERE THERE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE KNOWN AS ATHESIS. NON BELIEVERS OF THEIR RELIGION, NON BELIEVERS OF GOD, NON BELIEVERS OF JESUS CHRIST (A NON-EXISTANT CHARACTER IN FALSE STORIES). THOSE THAT DID ATTEND LISTENED TO FALSE STORIES AS THEY DO NOW, GIVE TAX FREE MONEY==INFACT EACH MINISTER, PRIEST AND PREACHER NOW-A-DAYS ARE RICH AND NO MATTER WHAT THEY BUY ITS ALL TAX FREE, BOATS,YACHTS, MANSIONS, CARS, LIMOSINES, LIKE THE POPE AND HIS EXPENSIVE CAR= THE POPE=YOU THE GUY THAT USED TO SHOOT DOWN B-17'S DURING WORLD WAR 2. NOW AS FOR GOD=I'VE BEEN TO MANY COUNTRIES AND THE ONE QUESTION I'VE ASKED IN EACH WAS = WHO OR WHAT IS GOD? IN ALL COUNTRIES EACH ALL SAID THE SAME THING= GOD IS A SPIRIT WITHIN EACH OF US AND WHEN YOU BELIEVE IN GOD, OR WISH FOR, YOUR ACTUALLY BELIEVING IN YOURSELF, SO I ALWAYS TELL EVERYONE TO TAKE GOOD CARE OF THEMSELVES. AS FOR THE WORD BIBLES. EACH STORY WAS TAKEN FROM THE FIRST BOOK WRITTEN AND CHANGED TO THEIR OWN HUMAN PREFERENCE AND RE-WRITTEN AND CHANGED SO MANY TIMES PEOPLE ACTUALLY ARE BELIEVING IN ONLY WHAT THEIR PREACHERS THINK THEY SHOULD BELIEVE IN= A FALSE BUNCH OF STORIES. THESE PROCEDURES ARE USED TO ENTRAP EVERYONE ATTENDING TO GIVE FREE MONEY AND TO TURN THEIR CHILDREN OVER TO THEM TO BE TAUGHT THE PREACHERS WAY AND OUT OF IT ALL HAVE COME GAYS, LESBIANS AND ALOT OF MOLESTING. NEVER THE LESS THOSE THAT DECIDED NOT TO BE A PART OF THIS ARE DUBBED ATHESIS AND WERE NOT ILLEGALLY MOLESTED AND GREW UP FREE FROM THESE PREACHERS WAYS. NOW THE FIRST BOOK WRITTEN AND THEIR COUNTRY DID'NT HAVE, NOR HAVE FEMALE SLAVES, BUT THE MUSLIM'S WHO LIVE BY THEIR BIBLE WHOLEHEARTEDLY HAVE FEMALE SLAVES. IN OTHERWARDS THOSE THAT WROTE FROM THE FIRST BOOK LIED IN WHATS CALL THE MUSLIM BIBLE= NO SLAVES AND WHY BOW DOWN ON THE GROUND IF ALLUH OR GOD IN OUR LANGUAGE IS WITHIN YOU OR ARE YOU BOWING TO SOMEONE ELSE? HAVE A NICE DAY. MIKE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement