But what if I think 'people of faith' are a little crazy?

Dissident JW member speaks out.

The core dogma of the Watchtower organization is that Jesus had his second coming 'invisibly' in the year 1914.Their entire doctrinal superstructure is built on this falsehood.

Jehovah's Witnesses door to door recruitment is by their own admission an ineffective tactic. They have lost membership in all countries with major Internet access because their false doctrines and harmful practices are exposed on the modern information superhighway.

There is good and valid reasons why there is such an outrage against the Watchtower for misleading millions of followers.Many have invested everything in the 'imminent' apocalyptic promises of the Jehovah's Witnesses and have died broken and beaten.
---
Respectfully,Danny Haszard http://www.freeminds.org

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

... if it likes politicians humping it so often? I'm sure if it could file a sexual harrassment suit, it would do so. And while we're at it, let's ask Galileo what he thinks of the church? Hmmm ... come to think of it, that one might be a wee bit tougher.

Taking that logic to lefty journalism, it means it’s not OK to say that God is a liberal, that God supports the minimum wage, or that George W. Bush and his cronies have broken all 10 Commandments.

Your point about the left throwing back what accounts to 'Bible behavior benchmarking' against the right is an excellent insight. Why even validate such hucksterism? You are dead on, Jan.

This whole attempt to appeal to the christian vote reminds me of that cartoon where a certain rabbit says: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

As I have posted previously regarding this pandering, perhaps this is the time for the democratic party to split. Cthulu knows we can't go any lower. And the 2006 elections ... sorry, but nothing is going to change. Democrats should have had a triple digit lead over the republicans by now, but they don't. That's not good news.

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

Tim Burton and Johnnie Depp have an understanding that everyone is more than a little nuts. The advantage of true religious in politics is that they are obliged to honesty and consistency. The faux water walkers, bush et al, merely abuse the notion of faith for personal gain. At this point, I'd settle for anyone in national office, of any stripe, who has managed to hold on to his integrity.

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

Jan, I'm more or less in your camp on this one, but question part of your argument. When someone wears their faith on their sleeve, yet their actions are totally out of whack with what they profess to believe, they need to be called on it. It did not make Gandhi a cynic or a hypocrite to point out to the British that their Enlightenment ideals were totally at odds with their administration of India. Such arguments can be (when versed by someone sublimely articulate) universally persuasive, appealing to the better nature of all humankind.

Gandhi learned the ways of his opponents, often better than they themselves, and was then able to present arguments that were irrefutable. Recognize that few people genuinely want to be evil (Cheney & Rove being obvious exceptions), and then appeal to, as Lincoln said, "the better angels of [their] nature."

Not that it's easy.

Good article, BTW.

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

Yeah, that Martin Luther King sure was some nutcase. And that Bill Moyers, what a complete crackpot. And let's not forget the Barrigans. And the Quakers. Wack jobs all of them. Wearing their pacifist religious beliefs on their sleeves.

Let's get back to some civilized atheism. Mao. Stalin. Pol Pot. Castro. Men of the people all.

Or maybe, it's not religion or atheism, but those who carry the banner.

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

Jan, though I completely agree with you in substance when it comes to religion and religious belief, I couldn't disagree more with your tone. While people like you and me might find blind religious worship irrational and incomprehensible, what right do we have to go around calling people crazy just because they happen to believe something different from us? I mean, sure, you have the "right" to think whatever you want about people, but I'm not sure your sentiments do much besides provide you with a sense of personal self-satisfaction. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. But the school of liberalism I subscribe to embraces tolerance of those whose beliefs differ from mine and tries to promote pluralism and acceptance as a solution to competing ideologies.

But more than that, when you say we shouldn't bow down to the power of faith, what do you propose we do instead? If you agree that the power of faith is very strong in America, I don't see how the left is going to win change without at least embracing religious rhetoric. I completely understand (and support) resisting religious infiltration into the government by the religious right (or any religious group for that matter). But it seems to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you're suggesting non-believers like us refuse to allow all religious discourse on the left. That's somewhat totalitarian, don't you think? If a religious person embraces a progessive agenda and uses their faith to bolster such beliefs, folks like you and me have no right to try and stop them. We can resist their efforts to use the government to indoctrinate others, but we can't dictate what people can and can't say in the name of progressivism, liberalism, leftism, etc.

And trust me, I say this while agreeing with you 100% that, to use your words, "most of the purveyors of these arguments are not believers themselves. And that makes them just as cynical and manipulative as the guys on the other side who wield Jesus in their eternal and holy battle to cut corporate taxes."

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

Do not ignore the difference between organized religion and what Emerson called “Soul.” He called it that, because the word “spiritual” had, even in his day, become so specious as to be inarticulate and had become an embarrassment to anyone who bothers to think, even just a little bit.

Rituals of initiation have the capacity to make one think that something important has happened. Such rituals are common to any human group, from lovers and the family to Erhardt Seminar Training and Hinayana Buddhism. They are almost always accompanied by some form of indoctrination.

Is ‘religion’ best understood as one certain kind of belief? Or are all beliefs, in one way or another, religious? If it is the former, then the examples given here of Eastern Orthodox and the Witnesses might be hard pressed to find anything in common, other than Frei’s designation as weird, crazy, foolish. But it would be just as hard to argue that all weird, crazy, foolish beliefs are religious.

The temptation then is to say that since one cannot avoid beliefs (even Data of Star Trek managed some of those), one cannot avoid religion. To paraphrase Emerson, “The Gods we worship write their names on our faces. And be assured we will worship something.”

What’s crazier than a journalist writing about how crazy his step-brother is? I always thought journalists had to be the craziest ones. Who else thinks they have something to say that other people need to hear? Why, that sounds like a preacher’s motto.

What do art criticism, literary criticism, and journalists bloviating about religion have in common? They’re always right. Why would anyone bother with opinions that can never be wrong? Sounds like some kind of religion to me.

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

While there's been a decent mix of views on religion here, the tone is generally "religious people are stupid, we can't have progress until we get rid of religion."

I am a liberal. I am a progressive. I am not a moderate. I consider religion to be an important part of my life. I do not shove my beliefs down other people's throats. I find the constant religion-bashing here very alienating. I do not see any difference between the atheists who tell me that I am stupid for not seeing things the way they do and evangelicals who tell me that I am going to hell for not seeing things the way they do.

I used to read alternet everyday. I don't feel much draw to the site anymore (I linked to this article through another site).

What I want to know is HOW THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN PROGRESSIVE POLITICS IF YOU KEEP INSULTING THE "BS THEY CLING TO OUT OF DESPERATION" AS YOU CALL IT?

I have no problem with people explaining their journey to atheism. I have a problem with people saying anyone who hasn't had a similar journey is an idiot.

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

You don't speak for the progressive movement, you don't say what is OK and not OK to include in a movement. Sure, it doesn't take a Rabbi or somebody well versed in scripture to question the Right Wing moral authority, but posturing yourself as if you were of superior intellect on the grounds of disbelief in a supreme being is Grade A self-righteousness. Period.

I would never accept anybody bowing to what my personal beliefs are, and I am sure as hell not going to bow to yours. If you ever want the good guys to win an election; you know, the people who want to help the sick, the poor, the people who want to end the war, you are going to have to win by a majority. And you can't win the majority if you think they are mostly a bunch of nutcases. Its contemptuous.

Some of those nutcases, like the people of UNICEF, Quakers, Mennonites, Catholic Worker are actually out there in the real world trying to make a difference. It's a slap in the face of people like them and the Christians who were martyred during the civil rights movement to insult the belief system that makes them who they are (or were). Its a slap in the face of the priests who were slaughtered in Central America for teaching Liberation Theology to people who were being oppressed by US state sponsored terrorism. I know there are horrors done in God's name, but there have been horrors done in the name of secular labor movements also.

I probably agree with you on moral principal on most Earthly matters, but I am obviously inferior because of my belief in God. I'm sure the progressive movement can survive on intellectualism alone, so far so good. I'll just go back to my nuthouse where I believe that war is wrong and we are all suppose to love each other. I dont judge you for your beliefs. I would hope that you would see the benefit, the inclusiveness, of doing the same.

Otherwise we are divided and have no chance of defeating this immoral nationalistic fascism that has finally come to the surface.

Peace.

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

Thank you, Mr. Frel. Couldn't have said it better myself.

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

as progressives is that we want separation of church and state, we want positive progressive values informing our policies, and we want freedom of expression (religious, atheist or otherwise).

Yes, there's a lot more we could probably agree on. But what happens is that the politics gets personal... someone doesn't like religion in their experience, it's toxic to them personally. For someone else the experience or religion is entirely different and a positive factor for them personally. And that's ok. We're about diversity, we progressives love diversity and freedom.

The peace offering then, is to just buck it up. Spout off all you like about the Dems trying to appeal to religious values or how awful it is. Fine. But at the end of the day, after everybody feels better getting stuff off their chests, let's let go of all the fear involved in all of this and get back to

separation of church and state, positive progressive values (they can sound religious and that can be ok), freedom, and lifting every boat. We can find common ground, because even though we're progressives who are like herding cats, at the end of the day, we're uniters because we believe everyone has rights, our ideals are for each other, unlike the Neocon Religion-baiting Republicans whose agenda really is based on hate and division and taking away our rights.

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

Do you remember what a ven diagram is? I have to confess, I was stretching myself to recall the long forgotten term from my school days. But I’m glad I did because the functionality of the vendiagram, to my mind at least, comes in handy here. Ven diagrams are drawings which visually describe the overlapping choices available in certain situations. This situation, as I see it, is a ven diagram of a situation. The problem stems from that fact both sides seem to dismiss this in favour of dealing in absolutes.

Jan, for instance, suggests that his brothers (and presumably everyone) who engages in religion are “a bunch of suckers who pour their time in an energy sink, are stuck in an obsolete way of thinking, and make some very stupid choices in life based on these beliefs, involving everything from diet to seeing doctors.” His analysis is entirely based on a need to be materialistically correct; Is the universe created by a God? etc. I have to say, on a personal level, this is pretty well the angle I broach the subject from.

However, there’s more to life than being correct, as Barack Obama seems to be suggesting. “Acknowledg(ing) the power of faith in the lives of the American people” is, I would suggest, focusing on the other angle from which religion entices – the other shape to our ven diagram - not mentally, but physically. Yes, we can all hark on about the nature of quantum physics, but religion didn’t just provide answers to such questions. It also made people feel better.

So here we have the two mergable shapes – on one extreme the head led, people like Jan and surely myself, who’s dedication is to being factually correct. On the other, the heart led, who’s dedication is to feeling better. And then, in the shady bit that we find in the middle of the ven diagram, we meet the majority. People who will pick and choose depending on whether they want to be correct for that particular moment, or if they want to feel better.

To my mind, people are only talking crazy by arguing for God *if* you are talking about physics or the nature of the universe in which case it smells like complete bunkem to me. But then, if, as seems to be the case with Jan’s brothers, it gives them a sense of purpose and puts a smile on their own faces, who are we to stop them? Moreover, as a rational atheist, I know that if I *could* suspend my disbelief and enjoy eternal bliss simply by believing in a nonsensical creator – would I be crazy by not taking that opportunity?

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

that's the paradox of rejecting religion: if they can't say they are "right" then how can we? I mistrust anyone who says they have the answers, but I have to be careful not to think that's MY answer.

"doubt, and doubt that you doubt"-- Crowley
(who might *really* be Bush's grandfather if you haven't heard, crazy...)

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

If God truly existed, we would ALL know. Every person of every generation would know for sure. I can't imagine a God that would play hide and seek, a religious Where's Waldo, leaving dubious signs such as the virgin mary grilled cheese...
Religion is the single greatest fraud and evil ever perpetrated on man. The bible was written by people for people- to control them. Looks like it works. There are lots of sheeple around. Me, I'm a good person. I have my own ethical and moral code, I don't have the fear of a lake of fire or eternity in hell as a motivating factor. I just do what I know in my heart is right.
Most of the religious folks I know are also the biggest hypocrites I know. They sin during the week, thinking its OK because they go to church on sunday. They hide behind the bible to justify predjudices they would have anyway. They don't do anything about all those child-molesting priests, but can't stop screeching about their version of "family values". They say God created the earth but treat it like their personal trash dump.
If I was religious, I would have a true personal relationship with God. I wouldn't need church (cult) to tell me how to think. And I would certainly never presume I could speak for God. I could never be so arrogant.

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

As a rational person, Frel obviously feels compelled to point out the inherent strangeness of religious belief. If that's considered insulting, then so be it.

Consider the position we atheists are in: We live in a world that is run largely by people who believe in make-believe gods and their make-believe minions. Dirkster, how would you feel if every day you had to endure a society in which most people believed that Winnie the Pooh created the universe and the Tooth Fairy died for our sins?

To their credit, Frel and some others are courageous enough to point out this lunacy. Unfortunately, the crazies are winning and probably will destroy us all, but we don't have to sit quietly and watch it happen.

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

As a religious conservative, I'm always fascinated to watch lefties try to grapple with the pervasive religiosity of American life. The most amusing and disturbing aspects of this curious waltz are rooted in the bitter hostility toward religion that is so common on the left. This hostility forces leftists into a very narrow corner. If they say what they really think, like Mr. Frel, they can kiss political success good-bye. Nobody votes for someone who calls him a self-deluded fool. So many unbelieving lefties try to tone it down, and even argue that their political views are more consistent with true religion than those of the right. But...so what. If it's obvious that you're only saying that to win votes, that you still despise religion, you can tallk that sort of thing all day long, and it won't get you anywhere. People will see it as the hypocritical cant it plainly is.

Enlightened folk of a century ago convinced themselves that hardly anyone would believe in God by this time, and so they never expected to confront this problem. But in a world that seems to be getting more religious rather than less, the left's general anti-religion bias has become its most crippling weakness. And I really don't see any way past it.

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

Most people who claim to believe in God are deceiving themselves. If they truly believed, they would be doing as the bible commands. Instead, people make up reasons why the bible doesn't apply to them. I'm not being glib: if you believe in God, why are you not sacrificing animals at the alter, and rubbing yourself with annointed oils? You laugh, but that's the word of God, and laughing is not a straight answer. If you truly believed in Him, you'd be doing as he says instead of justifying your belief that you don't have to obey God's word. If you pick and choose which parts of the bible to heed, then you don't really have that much faith. If you've adapted the bible to modern times, you are disobeying god. If you think the bible is a metaphor, that's not god. If you believe in God, truly believe, then go do as the bible says, and start slaughtering those lambs. Otherwise, don't claim that you have faith, because what you really have is a political belief system propped up by faith. Not faith in God, but faith that your political views are righteous. Like I said, if you really thought God was all-powerful, you'd probably be doing what he supposedly told you to do. Actions speaker louder than words.

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

I agree that from a logical perspective, religion is pretty whack. Especially when you compare group A against group B, with both claiming to be the chosen purveyors of god's true word.

But I also feel that these fallacies and contradictions do not mean jack squat to the true believers. There is no cogent argument or logic that will shake their faith. It is the same with conservatives and progressives. One group thinks the market should rule and that all poor people ar just lazy idiots who get what they deserve, while the other thinks that all people should have an equal chance at a decent life and recognize that many people are born into disadvantaged situations. You can't argue with a conservative, believe me, I have tried. They just see things differently, it's like their wiring is incompatible with the concepts of empathy or justice.

The point is, as logically sound and true as this article is, it only hurts our cause. I don't care if Mao was right and Rev. King wrong about religion, because Rev. King used his "crazy" beliefs to do something good for society while Mao took the opposite approach.

I guess I'm arguing that the ends justify the means. If the progressive movement can at least acknowledge that many religious people want the right thing, then maybe we can work on getting them to stop voting against our shared interests. Again, the bible-thumpers don't respond to logic. Voting against their economic interest is perfectly logical to them if they think their candidate is down with J. C.

That being said, I think there is spiritual gap in our society, and that gap is being filled with consumerism. I don't think spending time in church necessarily accomplishes anything, but I KNOW that spending time in walmart buying useless plastic crap only contributes to the destruction of the environment and widens the gap between the rich and poor.

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

The irrational belief in the super natural fits very well with George Bush's America.

If the last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism, then the first refuge is religion.

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

There isn't any god, period, fact. If there was wouldn't he/she/it stop this madness? Aliens won't come here because this planet is sick. Or whatever you want to believe. Finding a crutch to salve your crummy life that isn't in your control and then pushing that belief on anyone else is a form of brainwashing. Cults, like republican, democrat, or whatever politics mirror religion as a means of control for the masses that aren't allowed enough information to think for themselves. Can't form a cogent opinion if you can't get good information, so why does the media parrot the party line? Simple, money, and that is the religion of this planet.

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

While the article of this article is politically crazy, I'm also not too thrilled by Barack Obama, who is re-inforcing two insidious things: 1) that believers are victims, and 2) the truly offensive 'rule' that America is a god-believer country, and those of us who don't believe are second-class citizens.

Look at who's in power in this country: the fact is that religious non-believers are in need of defense in this country. Democrats joining the mob that hates and distrusts us is just plain scary.

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

Jan Frel, in this post you sound like you don’t want folks on the bus unless they think just the same way you do. Regardless of what your way of thinking is, that bus is going to be kind of empty. You might find the satisfaction of purity, but will you win elections?

The Republicans exploit sincerely religious people in a highly cynical way. I would venture that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove don’t have a particle of religious faith among them, but they harness for their own purposes the belief and the longing of those who do. Shall we just stand by while they harvest those votes again and again, because we don’t want people like that voting for our side?

Non-believing progressives have something important in common with many religious people: a sincere desire to Do The Right Thing. Jan Frel is focused on the differences. I don’t at all disagree with him as to what those differences are. But what are the areas of overlap? Can we find a way to speak to what we have in common with religious folks?

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

Does this make me crazy? No. I simply believe there is a higher power - yet I don't define it. But you cannot condemn someone for such personal beliefs unless they choose to do bad things because of it.

I believe there was a man called Jesus who tried to show us a good way to live with each other. I also believe he showed there was more to our lives than just our physical bodies. Crazy to you (you'll only find out when you die) but where does that harm you in any way? It doesn't.

Trust me, people like me - liberal, progressive Christians - aren't the ones you should be calling out here as crazy or bad for the US (which you imply). I'm just betting you have a few such "crazy" beliefs based on unsupported suppositions yourself. We all do and know one ever gets around that. For, if we knew which beliefs were totally wrong due to supposed "facts" which turn out not to be, we wouldn't believe that.

The core beliefs in Christianity and most religions basically say "be good to people" (does this feel like a Bill and Ted movie yet?). And conservative or literallist nuts invariably act in ways which aren't good - and demostrably so. It's up to us TOGETHER to call them when this happens as it is now.

I don't really mind that you are an athiest. In my belief system, that's not what matters, as I believe Jesus tried to point out, but what does matter is how we treat each other all the time. If you do well in this last then you are all right by me, I don't care what religion or non-religion you belong to. And neither should you. My religion does not force my vote because of someone who spouts vocally beliefs similar to mine but my vote and my feelings towards them depend entirely upon how they act. The real problem here is that "you can fool some of the people some of the time" (fools, that is) "and all of the people some of the time" and as a group, boy, have most of us been fooled.

So now, instead of performing some strange self-destruction within the progressive community by calling each other names, we should educating other just to the extent they have been fooled and showing them that the people running this country are doing very bad things. And then, eventually, you'll see that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

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

Please read the Sermon on the Mount and read summaries of the Vatican II edicts. Jesus Christ and his "father" (g-d) advocate "preferential of the poor" but American Protestantism has successfully morphed modern Christianity into a sadist cult that believes we can only redeem ourselves through either a personal relationship with a dead man or suffering ala prison and our ridiculously harsh Judicial system. If you believe we have a lenient system then I beg you to talk to a person who has Moral Turpitude on their record.

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

We are not going to get anywhere if we try to make politics into a wholly rational enterprise. People don't elect people because they are the most rational choice for the job (if that were the case, Gore would have won by a landslide). As someone once said, "Politics is celebrity for ugly people." Trying to win an election by rational argument, including the very rational arguments against the existence of a divine anthropomorph who controls our lives will keep progressives in the minority forever.

What we need to do is to engage people's passions about justice, fairness, equality, freedom, and other ideals that are the hallmarks of progressivism. The right has been winning this game hands down for a long time. And calling people with genuine religious impulses morons is merely playing up to the stereotype of liberals as smug elitists.

There are very rational reasons for humans to have and share religious beliefs (see Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained for evolutionary biological explanation). Religion provides people with a community of shared values. Your experience of these kinds of communities may be one of intolerance and disdain, but I have seen churches who are as deeply committed to the values of progressivism as any "bright" (speaking of smugness, as a card-carrying atheist, I find that term incredibly condescending). I don't feel the need to prosletyze for my lack of religion. I don't care if you are a believer or not, as long as you are willing to join the fight against right wing radicals. Maoist appeals to absolute ideological purity are a good way to make the progressive movement even more marginalized. Thanks, Jan!

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

How about us "religious nuts" (I'm of the Pagan, hazelnut variety...the Christians, I think, are like pecans) taking our donations to Alternet and gviing them to the Quakers, local school systems, community centers, etc?

That'll keep the site pure of religious influence of any sort, since we're obviously stupid, dirty fools who can't see the road for our asses. Jan Frel and the other SUPER! ATHIESTS! will feel good about themselves, and they can attack historical leaders of faith and thier actions to the greatest of thier abilities.

Oh, whoops. No, they won't be able to. There won't be a site left. Or, it'll get the reputation of being the Left's version of Freeperville. Oh, noes!

Hey, Jan Frel, get this: when you're so high on your damned horse that you're looking down on REV King (and, yeah, I said Reverend. Wash your gooddamn eyes out. You saw something religious.) for his faith, you really need to step back, look in a mirror, and face yourself. That's a sort of intolerance and narcissism that needs help in a big way.

Look, liberals and progressives have faith, alright. We have faith that the world can be a better place. We have faith that our friends Larry and Stan, or Sami and Lara, can get married. We have faith that giving rich people tax breaks won't make us money. We have faith that children can possibly have a bright, green Earth to play in. And if you don't have faith in those things, you ain't a progressive. Could be a religion. Could be an obsession. Could be just another string of Roman alphabet characters spelling out a "word" n the OED. But it's something that binds us ALL together, which is why we're on this site in the first place.

If you can't seem to find it in yourself to share the oxygen with the rest of us losers, then I pity you, and people who think like you. Most of all, I pity us, because all of our love, time, and brainpower will be for naught because of CLOSED-MINDED PEOPLE LIKE YOU rejecting perfectly good people for not following your prescribed path.

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

Thank you for judging my sanity without having met me. For deciding based on blind faith that I am crazy.

Thank you for playing right into the hands of your enemy, the Republicans. Christians should universally be progressives, but sadly the most important messages in the New Testament have been hijacked and ignored. By alienating Christians, you are helping (in however small a way) to push votes away from the only alternative.

Thank you for holding up two extreme examples of Christianity as if all Chistians are extreme in the same or similar manner, ignoring the vast majority that is the moderate Christian.

Thank you for deciding that all religion is about accepting whatever answers are handed to you without critical thought, despite the fact that the church I go to is more about asking questions and letting the congregation find the answers.

Thanks for deciding what I and thousands (if not millions) like me believe, based on the examples of two people that even I would call crazy.

And above all, thank you for being elitist, deciding that all religious people are crazy and can't ride with the cool kids like yourself.

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

I have so much in common with the evangelicals:
I turn to the bible to tell me how to live my life.
The evangelicals turn to the bible to tell me how to live my life too! (Except for Joel O. He's cool.)

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

These hypocrites in power are as sacreligeous as they come, but they are savvy in their use of 'values' and other hot-button issues that propel their base of true believers into action. If clarity was an issue, these 'values' voters would be outraged at being used in such a wanton way. Of course, all religious tenets command that the poorest amongst us be taken care of and all ten of the commandments in Christianity and Judiasm forbid killing, blasphemy, idolotry, lust, adultury and disrespect for your parents. That's quite a load to tow. All you need do is take a good look at those who preach these commandments and realize that they are the ones breaking em on a daily basis. The wars they wage are merely for their profiteering. They see the killing of innocents as collateral damage, not 'thou shalt not kill' turned on it's head. But, their base follow as sheep, never admitting their uneasiness with the obvious hypocrisy as their thrice married representative thumps the bible in their concerned faces. They hunger for the bigotry presented by these blasphemous bloviators since having an enemy to hate, be they homosexual, feminist, or pacifist, empowers them. They get to feel the superiority denied them by circumstance of birth, poor education or bible brainwashing. Liberals need to reach the religious community, I agree. But not the 'base' fundamentalist fanatic fringe that worships W, follows Falwell and condemns liberals to death. By saying we have faith in a higher power and we believe the principles advocated by historical figures such as Jesus, we speak the truth even if we do not believe in god or religion. We open our hearts to those who believe in charity for the needy, stopping the killing of innocents and an end to the discrimintaion against any human for hateful reasons. The divisive tactics Rove and co. use, time after time, are becoming stale to the majority of those who swallowed that shit the last time around. Gay marriage and flag burning get trotted out before elections, but never do they go anywhere.They are not intended to cause they need stay in play for wedgies, placed secretely under the only holy alters these bastards worship, the bank vaults. We need to express our outrage at how W's base continues to be abused by this sacreligious regime and point to New Orleans and Baghdad to exemplify how policies put into place by them have failed humanity. Our principles are strong for their values even if we do not share their religious convictions. So, if a Christian Reverend or a Rabbi stands up in unity with progressive values, we should welcome their voices and harmonize with them. It wouldn't be a stretch or a contradiction of our principles or purely politically pandering as the bushites have so cravenly been perpetuating since their rise to unparalleled power. It would be truth telling and no hypocritical sanctimonious immoral blowhard now in office, your Frists, Allens, Santorums et al, can obfuscate the veracity of our beliefs. Maybe, just maybe, the truth will set them free and liberalism will once again reflect the glory of the righteous gains we have made for a just society.

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

This site loves to publish articles that slam people of faith. They've been getting stronger and stronger in their wording as time goes on. I think this is the 2nd attack article I've seen in about a month and a helf or so, right...?

Put your money where your mouth is.

Don't give this site money.
Don't subscribe.
Don't click on the ads, because that gives them money, too.
Don't purchase anything through the site gateways.

I was going to donate to Alternet, but I held off after seeing that last article. I wanted to see if it was a fluke, but I guess it wasn't.

Also, complain to Don Hazen. Do something. We cannot, in good faith, and as good progressives, support intolerance or belittlement. Liberals are about growth and character. Smears, condescension, and insults aren't liberal values.

Don't support a publication that won't support you.

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

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-- T. Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Please note that he's including both atheists and theists among people he has no a priori reason to feel threatened by.

From the point of view of someone who hovers on the line between non-sectarian theism and agnosticism, this internecine fighting between liberals who believe in God and liberals who don't is really, really, really, really stupid and counterproductive. Here are the reasons why:

1- The question will not be resolved -- certainly not in an AlterNet discussion forum. Philosophers, scientists, and theologians have spent centuries trying to come with compelling proofs either for or against God's existence. None of them thus far have been particularly successful.

2- It will drive away religious liberals from the progressive movement if they feel like people are mocking them for their beliefs, or equating them with Jerry Falwell just because they believe in God. In fact, many religious liberals absolutely despise Falwell and his ilk, and would be seriously offended by suggestions that they're cut from the same cloth. Anyone who doesn't see the profound differences between, say, a fundamentalist Pentecostal and a liberal Quaker does not, IMO, have a good enough understanding of the doctrines and beliefs involved for their opinions about them to be worth much.

And we can't afford to drive away people who might otherwise agree with us. The fact is that we are a political movement, not a theological or philosophical one. We do not have the luxury of being dogmatic. As long as someone sincerely accepts core liberal principles, I really don't care how they came by them. If their liberal political views stem in some ways from their religious beliefs about some guy who was executed two thousand years ago, well, I might disagree with those religious beliefs, but fundamentally it's their business if they choose to hold them, and it remains their business unless they try to force them on me.

3- It will also give the Right more ammunition with which to slander us as godless pinko commies, etc. The fact is that the majority of the people in this country are religious, and will not support an overtly anti-religious party or movement. That doesn't mean we have to be pro-religious to get votes; just that we should avoid taking a stand either way.

4- After years of participation in progressive activism, I have yet to see any evidence that a non-religious liberal is more likely to be a "better" liberal than a religious one -- or vica versa. The Mao vs. MLK comparison has been made previously.

5- It's just bloody obnoxious to constantly and needlessly be putting people on the defensive about their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. To those doing so: just shut the hell up and get over yourselves, will you?. People who agree with you about, say, the minimum wage might disagree with you on the existence of the soul. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. Let's talk about things that are useful and pertinent.

-K.Ai.-

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

So now there are fanatical bigots coming after me (and a LOT of people who are just like me) from both ends. One hates us for not having the same beliefs they do, and the other hates us because we have any beliefs at all.

I had suspected this from seeing the increasingly hateful things that pop up here and on other "progressive" websites, but now it's confirmed. I know there are people out there who have some good ideas about the terrible things happening to our country, but you're not it.

You all enjoy your little hate-fest. Because that's all you're accomplishing when you stoop to this level.

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

Well, Jan, I guess I'm just "crazy" too. FWIW, I strongly agree with comments above by wetblanket and Krotos, but perhaps that won't matter to you.

I'll be the first to admit that it's within the realm of possibility that my "need" for a God is due to either a deep neurosis or to a genetic defect of some kind that others simply lack. On the other hand, there is room in this universe for many possibilities. I will not ask you to "bow" to any of those possibilities.

In defense of Orthodoxy, we have a wholistic faith involving the five senses as you mention. The root of this is that we believe in the value of human beings in their entirety: physical, mental, and spiritual. In other words we aren't only concerned with Platonic realities. The endless cycle of feasting, fasting, and praying is aimed at changing the individual as a complete creature. No effort stands in isolation from any other. Additionally, the effort is aimed at changing the world through the vehicle of changing the individual. This contemplative practice is a private matter. It's not about cramming anything down anybody else's throat. It's about personal humility.

It absolutely baffles me how anyone could want to exclude a voice such as Martin Luther King's or Mahatma Gandhi from the public square simply because their values are privately informed by their religion. We all have to have a moral compass of some kind. If yours or mine involves some kind of delusion, then so be it so long as we stand in agreement about the outcome.

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

Example A: early last summer during drought ridden chicago a sighting of mother mary was captured under the freeway. the area was cordoned off for all people of faith to see the water and soot stained concrete. and you know it kind of did look like the madonna.

Example B: on the back dash board of my car above a bumper sticker that says "Attack Iraq - NO" is mounted a jesus bobblehead. initially 3 bobbleheads were mounted -jesus, einstein, and betty boop. einstein fell off (omen). bettyboop sagged from the sun and fell into jesus' hands (omen). and jesus , from spending much time on that dashboard changed his complexion from white to black (superomen).

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

Why do you think the Democrats and other progressive movements always lose elections in this country? It's because of the atheistic and agnostic intellectual "elite" like Jan Frel who either ignore or entirely discount religious beliefs as "crazy." You can't have such open contempt for a faith which is a huge part of who many people are at their cores, and expect them to vote for you. I am a liberal, progressive Christian who tries to live my beliefs, and I would never vote for someone espousing such divisiveness and hatred (yeah, I said it) for the great majority of the American population, just like I would never vote for any of the fundamentalist evangelicals espousing divisiveness and hatred. No one likes to be looked down on and told they are stupid or crazy. Until you learn that, the Democratic party is in serious trouble.

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

While I usually find much to agree with in your articles, I fear that this time you are not only wrong in concept, but confused in execution. I appreciate and accept that you are an atheist and I fully understand a mindset that would choose atheism as the most logical philosophical view of existence. While I am not an atheist (I'm somewhere between agnostic and believer) I recognise that much of what is purported to be fundamentalist belief does make one credulous.

Where your confusion with religion seems to begin is in your overwhelming faith in the current scientific view of life, its' creation and randomness. I agree that evolution is a theory that is laden with proof and the best acceptable explanation of the phenomena of progression of life. Ditto for Big Bang Theory. What we know of science though is that it is dynamic and that these theories will be challenged and/or modified as further scientific evidence is discovered. Look at Quantum Physics and String Theory which seem to make the universe a lot weirder place than science (or humans) could imagine. Psychedelics, like LSD, have also taught us that reality may not always be what it seems to be.

You also confuse certain Fundmentalist religious rantings, with those of mainstream theologians and believers. Those who take Genesis for instance as literal truth, rather than understanding it as a metaphor, don't really understand the bible they are reading. They further don't understand that at the time of the bible actually being written the text's writers, understood that they were using metaphors and parables.

Neither Falwell, Robertson, or others of that ilk can be taken seriously theologically. They are(were) con men warping theology for their own selfish purposes, or simply people too easily misled into not truly understanding their faith. The so called Christians who elevate the importance of The Book of Revelations (a dubious inclusion in the Christiam Canon) over Jesus and Paul's actual sayings pervert the Christian message.

The overwhelming majority of religious leaders in this world see no dichotomy between evolutionary theory and their religious faith. You confuse the beliefs of pseudo-theologians like Falwell, Robertson, etc., with those in the mainstream of Christianity. You neglect the fact that the variety of major religions of humanity prove to be far less doctrinaire against scientific thought, than those supposedly professing faith, who are really seeking power and wealth.

The real issue here is not the validity of religious belief, it is the constitutional issue of separation of church and state. While you have every right to express your atheism and your scepticism, you do the cause of reclaiming the country from the anti-constitutional criminals now in power no service. If, barring a revolution which I think we both agree to be unproductive, you want to get rid of these bums, than we must develop a coalition of people who may have differing philosophical and religious beliefs. Your calling a majority of Americans idiots, in effect, is quite unhelpful in coalition building. Unfortunately, I think it displays recklessness on your part and in your position as a progressive advocate.

I am strongly against kowtowing to the demands of the religionists who would enforce their faith through law or intimidation, abortion/evolution issues, for instance. These issues can be defeated without resorting to demeaning the religious beliefs of their proponents.

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

Eighty percent of the population in the America claim the Christian faith and less than one percent claim to be atheists. I am one of the minority, in the voting world we are irrelevant. Jesus told the Christians not to chant in public. That is good advice for atheists.

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

Jan,

Like many of your readers here, I waffle between agnostic and mildly theist (I have trouble escaping the box of MONO-theism that my psuedo-Muslim upbringing and Episcopalian high school and Catholic college have ingrained in me, but I'm starting to a little bit in my old age; I could dig "the Force" from Star Wars, sort of the universe's nature with a little extra oomph).

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I feel like you wouldn't have to make any of these comments if these goddamn supposedly progressive pols would shut the fuck up about their religion. They should decline speaking AS POLS at religious events, and keep it out of all houses of government. They throw you under the bus by not doing it, and the whole leaves the right sneering and laughing. But hey, the rest of them do it, so if you're so inclined, speak your damn mind! I'm right behind you.

And for those of you who put on the bold type for "How the fuck do you ever expect to get elected...(zzzzz)", I say this: Jan Frel is a man, and a good man, and a man of principle. That you would question his desire for success of those principles is lunacy. Last I checked, he had no hopes of being personally elected to anything (except maybe the occasional "best-dressed journalist" list), nor does he set blanket progressive policies. I think he does expect progressive candidates to get elected particularly because they should be open enough to discuss contentious issues like these and work through them in an intellectual manner, instead of the right's model of handing down doctrine that everyone in the rank and file reads off a page.

That said, Socrates said that only the truely wise man can admit his own total ignorance. For this reason, I personally reject atheism. Isn't it just as dogmatic as organized religion, except the dogma is the lack of dogma? Agnosticism is admitting ignorance. And ignorance has worked out great for the right...

-AG

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

Hey, guys, that´s enough of trashing the Jehovah´s Witnesses. I nearly split my sides every Sunday when they would convince my Mom to accept one of their mags. Those pictures are HILARIOUS!!! So at least they´re giving folks a good laugh -- that´s doing good, ain´t it?

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

I hate to quibble over semantics but it could quite plausibly be argued that faith is the foundation of human existence. Every time I place my foot down when I am engaged in the activity of walking, I am effectively relying upon my faith that the ground will not sink under the weight of my foot. I have induced this belief from previous experiences. However, inductive logic is essentially illogical, because no matter how many times a conjunction of events are repeated in the past, there is no logical necessity to conclude that this pattern will persist in the future. For the sake of argument, consider the possibility that the natural law dictating the relationships among worldly events will continue until x number of times and then the law, to which we have become accustomed, changes form, resulting in my foot sinking into the ground when I am walking. Consequently, every action we enact in the course of our existence is predicated by a type of faith. Therefore, I can confidently assert that I am an athiest, who, nevertheless, possesses a strong sense of religiousity.
R Cole

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

Ah, yes, now the religious left comes for us in addition to the religious right. "Most mistrusted minority" is a vast understatement. If a Christian went about saying that Jesus is the be-all end-all it wouldn't rate a glance. An atheist doesn't even have to go a tenth as far to get digitally lynched.

Let me straighten out a few things first. Reason is not "intellectual elitism." Professed atheism is not pseudointellectual ostentation. For that matter, atheism does not require intelligence to arrive at, or even conscious decision; c.f. someone who's never heard of religion, difficult as that may be to imagine. Atheism, which is essentially "godlessness," is nothing more than the lack of a belief in deities. "Strong atheism" is occasionally used to describe that augmented with a belief that deities do not exist.

Distinct notions from atheism that are commonly associated with it are secularism and secular humanism. Secularism is a policy of nonreligiosity in the interest of religious neutrality, typically adopted in the public sphere for things like separation of church and state. Secular humanism is a philosophy that was not motivated by atheism and is predominantly held by religious believers with the cosmopolitan approach of not bothering with rituals, rationalism, judging good by human standards and effects in "this life" as opposed to an afterlife, and other such tenets. These terms are uncommonly used, and few people identify with them regardless of the fact they adhere to them to a large degree, but their followings even in the US are vast, priests and ministers included.

There are far stronger cases against religion than any presented in this thread, but this isn't really a debate about who's right.

What is pertinent to the discussion is that faith is inherently irrational. From a contradiction, anything follows; hence, there is nothing that can't be proved to be moral by dint of faith. Faith is not mere comforting illusion or resolving ambiguity by irrational means. Faith is what motivated people to believe kings were ordained by God. Through faith, the Conquistadors believed that killing infants would save their immortal souls. Through faith, the Inquisition believed it was right to burn witches, gays, and Jews. Through faith, the "savages" of colonized lands were slaughtered by all the European empires. Through faith, the Germans believed Jews were deicides and that they were the "Master Race," like the British before them in the 19th century. Through faith, the "Cold War" against the "godless communists" killed far more people than the Holocaust.

Platitudes about the "moral values" of "religious progressives" fall flat in the face of the proven track record of religion. The reemergence of mass movements based on faith and religion signify impending persecution and violence in no uncertain terms.

So Barack Obama's speech means very little in concrete terms. The rampaging hordes of religious fundamentalists will continue to run amok with or without his tacit approval, which he so cravenly just gave in his speech. Even so, I remain thoroughly disgusted at now having one less Congressman between me and whatever brutality I'm to suffer at their hands.

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

Ok Jan, you made huge errors in this article.
1. Eastern Orthodoxy is not a very weird Christian splinter group. It is Christianity.
2. We don't use sticks of incense. Have you ever seen Orthodox incense?
3. Gold carvings? Can you elaborate a little more please?
4. Is your brother a monk? It seems to me you are saying that the prayers of a layman are worthless. Is that what you are saying?
5. Jehovah's Witnesses are not a church, they are a sect, and heretics.
6. Can you ask your brother who is his patriarch and get back to us?

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

I am a secular humanist...an agnostic, if you will.

That's not to say I don't have a clear idea about who "god" is, though...just that I don't quite know how to address it.

To me, god is life. God is the beauty and pain, the love and the violence, the joy and devastation of the universe. It isn't a sentient being whom we can appeal to for favors or personal serenity. It's the very force of life on earth and all throughout the universe.

It has no real agenda, other than that life goes on, in all its amazing and variable forms. There's no reason to believe that human existence matters to this immutable force any more than the existence of microbial bacteria on some distant planet.

That, to me, is wonderful. No matter what we, as humans, do to ourselves and our pitiful little blue planet, life will go on. To think that just because we are stupid and shortsighted enough to drag our sorry carcasses across the threshold of extinction means the end of life itself is pure hubris. In this, the progressives and the conservatives have much in common. One thinks it's the end of the world if humans die out, others think humans have the right to shape the world for their convenience. Neither is the case. I don't think we matter all that much in the scheme of the universe. Whatever we do, or don't do, affects mainly ourselves and the few life forms that share our planet. I don't, for a second, believe that this is the end-all and be-all of Life, with a capital L.

I find it both humbling and reassuring to think that ultimately, it won't matter much to the forces that brought us here, or wiped us out.

That's not to say, however, that I wouldn't like to see our short tenure extended, or that I don't appreciate the efforts of those who are doing their best to prolong human existence. Kudos, all. I try to help out in whatever small ways I can.

Just that, when it comes down to big-picture, zen-time, it's all ok. Peace.

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

I am a secular humanist...an agnostic, if you will.

That's not to say I don't have a clear idea about who "god" is, though...just that I don't quite know how to address it.

To me, god is life. God is the beauty and pain, the love and the violence, the joy and devastation of the universe. It isn't a sentient being whom we can appeal to for favors or personal serenity. It's the very force of life on earth and all throughout the universe.

It has no real agenda, other than that life goes on, in all its amazing and variable forms. There's no reason to believe that human existence matters to this immutable force any more than the existence of microbial bacteria on some distant planet.

That, to me, is wonderful. No matter what we, as humans, do to ourselves and our pitiful little blue planet, life will go on. To think that just because we are stupid and shortsighted enough to drag our sorry carcasses across the threshold of extinction means the end of life itself is pure hubris. In this, the progressives and the conservatives have much in common. One thinks it's the end of the world if humans die out, others think humans have the right to shape the world for their convenience. Neither is the case. I don't think we matter all that much in the scheme of the universe. Whatever we do, or don't do, affects mainly ourselves and the few life forms that share our planet. I don't, for a second, believe that this is the end-all and be-all of Life, with a capital L.

I find it both humbling and reassuring to think that ultimately, it won't matter much to the forces that brought us here, or wiped us out.

That's not to say, however, that I wouldn't like to see our short tenure extended, or that I don't appreciate the efforts of those who are doing their best to prolong human existence. Kudos, all. I try to help out in whatever small ways I can.

Just that, when it comes down to big-picture, zen-time, it's all ok. Peace.

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

I believe that when a religion spends its time trying save the unsaved by conversion or praying for them, instead of focusing on helping them in the here and now, that religion is not much use to progressives. Keep your faith private, or talk about it if you wish, but don't let it derail the train of physical accomplishments we all purport to be working on keeping moving.

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

It shouldn't always come down to "religious nut-job" versus athiest heathens. There is much more diversity than that.

"true-believers" can mean a lot of things.

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

...fundamentalism. At the risk of repeating other posts-blanket generalizations that religion or spirituality are inherently and invariably destructive and useless in political debate is no better than the alternative view that it is the ONLY foundation of politix, society and culture. I am probably closer to aetheism than anything else. I engage fundamentalist Christians constantly because I teach, and am concerned about, Evolution. I have met highly spiritual AND religous people capable of integrating their beliefs with scientific reasoning in a way that does justice to both, and respects the view point of each.

I am surprised and saddened by the virulent anti-religous, doctrinare thinking out there. I hope it's because people are confusing two issues-the legitimacy of beliefs vs. the application of those beliefs in the context of a pluralist society. The latter is really where we ought to have our focus, since I don't claim to be ablr to decide on what other pople ought to believe. Many thoughtful posts have nicely made this point. I believe we are making arguments about religion that we don't make (or would not tolerate) about other ways of thinking. Science has given us the atomic bomb, justified social darwinism and eugenics, faciliated the over-exploitation of resouces. We don't claim the science is bad or evil. We don't toss it out because of inherent contradiction in the way it can be used or it's conclusions. We debate the way in which it might be best used in the context of other factors.

Just my opinion.

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

Perhaps religion should be approached like cigarettes are in California. A percentage of profits should be used to educate young people about it's dangers.

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

What Jan is pointing out is that Obama is pandering to the same base that put the current group of thugs in office. I speak here about all three branches of the Federal Government now. The latest unbelievable rulings by the Supreme Court has finally put the frosting on the cake. Don't you think?

Like Sam Harris explains in his "End of Faith" moderate/liberal Christians only provide cover for the true Christians who believe every jot and tilde of the book is g-d inspired and true. These are the people who are anti-feminism, anti-gay, anti-pagan, anti-sex and want the laws and practices in this nation to reflect their very specific world view.

The tyranny of the religious over the non-religious will need to stop sometime if we have any intention of saving our Republic.

Making it uncomfortable for people to believe in the primitive supernatural is a good first step. People won't change spontaneously without giving them some stimuli to begin the process of introspection.

People of "Faith" have had a free pass for centuries on the reasonableness and correctness of their peccadilloes. It must end if we truly want a land of equality and fair play. The selection of a non-theistic world view puts you on the fast track to second class citizenship in this country. In some areas it will get you ostracized or maybe even fire bombed.

Think about the smugness of a group that constantly demonstrates their self perceived superiority over other religions, agnostics and atheists whenever they get a chance. What Obama is doing is lending credence and legitimacy to their world view (bad behavior) and abandoning those that don't believe the same thing.

History has repeatedly proved that it took actual resistance and rabble rousing to change the nation's view concerning slavery, female suffrage, and basic civil rights for most.

Perhaps this country is ready (Europe has pretty well already gone there) to explore a new outlook that is not so exclusionary and divisive as the current religious norm.

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

Obviously you people have never met a true Christian. What's going on here? A lot of mud slinging at Christians? Why? You think I like fundamentalism? I detest it. Give me and the other true Christians a chance, will you? Gosh.

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

The majority of Americans are in my opinion appalled by the attempt of a small minority of Fundamentalist Christians to try to destroy the separation of church and state. We can see that the likes of Falwell, Robertson and Dobson are attempting to impose their notion of Christianity upon the rest of us and they must be strongly opposed.

That being said, if one knows anything about Christianity and its' doctrines, then one can see that what is being huckstered is not mainstream Christian doctrine or theology. I write this as a Jew, but as one who has taken the time to delve into religions I wasn't born into and do not choose to follow.

Would that some of our more verbose atheist posters had taken some time to understand what it is they don't believe in. Had they done so they would understand that the threat the country faces is from people who have little knowledge of their own theology, or are just con men looking for another big pay day and/or both.

Progressives need to understand the difference because this country is overwhelmingly populated by those of Christian faith and so we must form coalitions with them to oppose the theocratic phonies and their Republican con men allies. By being able to distinguish where these phonies message diverges from the religion we can oppose their arguments by showing their falseness and hypocrisy. We can also expose the pseudo-Religious Republican Phonies who are playing a religious card that in truth opposes Christian doctrine.

By the way I say this as a Jew, who has no particular love for the Christianity that has borrowed our bible, attempted to replace our legitimacy and persecuted my people for 2,000 years. However, while I can never condone, nor forgive that persecution, I can recognise it for the perversion of true Christian ideas that it is.

History is replete with egotists who have perverted religious doctrine to attain power and wealth. In that process they have manipulated the masses to actually act in contravention to religious ideals and belief. This is but an old human con game though, that is not merely the process of religions expression. Look at the excesses of the French Revolution, Stalin and Pol Pot. The game is also played by secularists using philospohical and political idealism.

What I've seen in woefully too many posts here and in Jan Frel's unfortunate article is a failure to distinguish between fanatics, phonies, conmen and people of faith and goodwill. Their words, their anger and their painting of whole groups with the tar of their distaste comes across as just the kind of intolerance we rail against when it is on the Right. More than a few posts were written in an "Ann Coulterish" style. One poster implied that I would have stood mute in 1937 Germany as Hitler did his thing. Some of this vituperation, I imagine comes from anger, some from unresolved issues from childhood and some from downright ignorance. I would like to believe that we progressives are people of tolerance. Seeing some of these rants though, I realize that this is just a product of my rose colored glasses. As Pogo said" We have met the enemy and they are us."

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

This is the most *unproductive* discussion yet. Jan Frel is not a Christian. He has no business writing about Christianity. He is simply scorning Christianity and being allowed to get away with it. Disgusting. He is spreading misinformation about my church and writing with authority because he is a "journalist". Outrageous. This article is *scandalous*. It should be taken down immediately. How dare he compare a heretical sect like Jehovah's Witnesses to the Orthodox Church? What ignorance!
Horrid.

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

I think that perhaps Obama has the wrong angle. He seems to be doing the same thing that Hillary Clinton and so many other Democrats have done: adopted the philosophy that 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.' I say, better to beat 'em.

My immediate family was never particularly religious. Some branches of the extended family on both sides are, though. On one side, we've got Catholic relatives. I've been to weddings and other events. The robes, the jewelry, the wine, the showmanship, the colorful gay guy on the stage [not that there's anything wrong with that!]. It's hard to tell the difference between a Catholic service and a Liberace show, except that Liberace is unfortunately dead and at least people knew they were paying for a show and not salvation. Something about paying in man-made greenbacks for eternal salvation just strikes a bad note in me.

On the other side of my family, they are Eastern Orthodox. I've been to some weddings and other events. The robes, the jewelry, the wine, the showmanship, the colorful probably-not-gay-because-he's-married-but-you-never-know guy on the stage. It's hard to tell the difference between an Eastern Orthodox service and a Wayne Newton show. Except of course that Wayne Newton doesn't offer eternal salvation for the cost of the ticket either. Although, he still doesn't have any wrinkles after all these years so....maybe Wayne is God. I don't know.

Anyway, I think you're on to something with this "people of faith" business. You see, one man's faith is another man's delusion. I don't know if there's a God or if Jesus was his "son." I don't believe anyone can really know that for sure, and I have to believe that anyone who is so certain about something they can't possibly know can only be deluded.

I really wish we could figure out a way to stop deluded people from running the country.

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

There, satisfied? Come on now, why the satirization of Eastern Orthodoxy? What did it every do to you? Take away your half brother? You didn't sound so attached to him in your article. Come on, find something else to pick on besides the Eastern Orthodox Church, and get your facts straight while you are at it. The Eastern Orthodox church *does not* burn stick incense. Where in the world did you get that idea?
And how dare you compare Jehovah's Witnesses to Eastern Orthodox? That is probably the most inane thing you have written in this community, yes?

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

a lot of people do not realise that if we as human beings do not put our faith in god or the church we will put it in something or someone else.now jan seems to think that the jehovahs witnesses or the orthodox church are for fools.what is his answer then,that we believe in the power of man.what has man done that is so wonderful and lasting.ridiculing christianity shows ignorance.what was the founding faith of america and on what priciples did those first settlers live on when conquering the west?>

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

"But both can’t be true -- and because of the bizarre absolutist nature of the religious argument, they are both absolutely wrong."

Jan, you are showing your ignorance here big time. While fundamentalists of all stripes make absolute truth claims the basis for their religion, many people are able to see their beliefs in more relative terms. Take a look:

Christian theologians affirming the truth and value of other religions:

The Myth of Christian Uniqueness

One Earth Many Religions

God Has Many Names

Mystics and Zen Masters

Christians Talk about Buddhist Meditation - Buddhists Talk About Christian Prayer

Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras

Understanding Other Religious Worlds

Christian theologians take responsibility for the legacy of Christian anti-Jewish violence:

Faith and Fratricide

Constantine's Sword

Jews engage other religions:

The Jew in the Lotus

Christianity in Jewish Terms

Tip of the iceberg, my friend. Tip of the iceberg.

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

Look at the discussion! As saddened as I am by some of the extremist anti-religious posts, I am heartened by the fact that so many (and not just those individuals of a religious inclination) have argued agaist the myopia, intolerance and poor strategy of Freel's arguments. There are just as many people (if not more) who are trying to negotiate the fine line between dogmatic rejection and healthy skepticsm of the role of religion and spirituality as there are looking for simple solutions. I count that a victory of sorts.

Maybe even Freel has learned something.

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

He would not have retained such Muslim names as "Barack" and "Hussein" if his "conversion" to the United Church of Christ were in any way sincere. He is evidently intent on destroying Christianity by subverting it from within, a very crafty scheme indeed.

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

On the subject of the mental health of the religious, this is a great readThe Case Against Religion.

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

If everyone would just pull in their claws and stop talking past one another, perhaps something good can come of this.

I am not a theist. Maybe you are, but perhaps we are both secularists. If not then you will definitely be offended by what most thinking people write.

Secularism (especially humanistic) provides the lubrication to permit theists and non-theists to co-exist.

Without the mellowing influence of secularism, Christians would most likely still be burning witches and heretics.

Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all very exclusionary according to their written documents, theology and rituals. Islam being the latest of these groups has a clause where they accept all people of the Book. This includes Jews and Nazarenes (not Christians) as long as they pay tribute and recognize their inferior status.

Use deductive reasoning for a minute and truly think about this. Secular Islamic countries such as pre-war Iraq, Turkey and possibly Egypt represent relatively stable societies and do not generally exhibit the radical side of Islam culturally common in the more theologically driven countries of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.

During the colonial period here in North America Christian sects were lining up to banish, torture and kill members of other sects they felt were heretical.

Puritans and Episcopalians persecuted the Baptist, Roman Catholics and Quakers throughout New England and the mid-Atlantic colonies. This is why the founders were so vehement about keeping temporal and spiritual matters separate.

The Bible has not changed since it was first compiled yet acceptable behavior for individuals and the Church has. Why is this?

It is really very simple. The moderating influences of real science, philosophy, the Age of Enlightenment, and secular law have made life much more fair and safe for all members of society.

This is not to say that some religious groups have not participated in disseminating this more liberal worldview; it is however as consumers of new thought and not as the originators of it.

I agree that Secular Humanists and Religious Humanists should not war among themselves, but I for one am not willing to give any special status to personal religious beliefs. They should be open to all the same scrutiny and criticism as a political opinions.

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

I just don't see how we're going to get anywhere confronting faith with logic. Faith doesn't need logic to sustain it.

Worse yet is attacking faith with ridicule. That just makes enemies of people who have no reason to be.

I think we need to argue in positive terms for a society based on civic values, not religious ones. If people want to plug their religious values into that, that's fine. But we need to make it clear why we will never all agree about spiritual questions -- not even within the community of people who value faith -- and why there's no reason we have to, in order to have a civil society.

I just don't see any value in negatively defining those we disagree with on metaphysical questions -- except maybe that it makes us feel good to do it. Do we want to feel good, or do we want to build a better society?

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

Maybe the Greeks do use stick incense. What do I know? I am a Russian. I mean last time I checked all Orthodox deacons and priests use censers, know what that is, Jan Frel and all my detractors, to burn incense, but hey, maybe Jan Frel went to some freak side show posing as Eastern Orthodox Church. Those do exist, you know.
The bottom line is, Jan Frel has no business opining on the Eastern Orthodox Christian religion in front of an international audience. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing if I ever did see one. Very slick, very smart, and very bad. Shame on you Jan Frel. What is wrong with you? Afraid of God? That's a good thing, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

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

This is a current example of what can be expected when theists feel they are in control of a situation. How much more devisive can you get?

From a non-theist point of view, Islam and Christianity are the same. "True believers" will undoubtedly always exist at the margins of secular society. What we can not tolerate, is for them to determine the norms for society.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/
2006/07/05/the-stop-the-aclu-coalition
-publishes-jewish-familys-personal-information
-they-are-forced-to-move/

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

This rather childish post generated quite a few comments. Perhaps that was the point. Am I being manipulated here? Again? Who's behind this site anyway? The resistance has been bought, but who owns it now? Maybe you want to know how open/sensitive to religion lefties are? What does atheism have to do with activism anyway? To the author: If you can come up with a better idea than God almighty, then you should do so and right now. If not, then please press your two lips together and cease to spew. "God" has saved many a soul in this soulless soup that you call the modern occidental world. When and if YOU (or somebody you know) can save a soul, succor a human being in pain, comfort a broken body or mind then please step to the front. If not, then what are you crying about? God is performing what no other being, real or unreal, can. Free of charge. When and if you find yourself, blindfolded and handcuffed, in that friendly American-run prison, in that wonderful, but unnamed country, having your rectum pierced by hard objects or being mutilated by those K9 prison guards, I know that you will not call on God. Because you have some other resource, don't you? Please share your resources with the rest of us. Oops. You really have nothing to share, isn't that the case? Rather, you just want to take something away. You'll leave the "cool" religions (Buddhism) and the "real" religions (Christianity and Judaism). But you'd like to get rid of all those others cuz they're just too wacky, aren't they? Your real objection seems to be that religious people are not cool enough. God, I hope your excuse is that you are young. I'm sure that it's really because you are American, that you have it so good over there that your main problems are breaking up with your little boyfriends and girlfriends. You guys replaced God long ago, with *American Privilege*, purchased with your *American Citizenship*, and your near total adherence to the a nifty system of world domination. 250,000 people pretty much sitting in the catbird seat. So many assholes left unharmed, so to speak. (Excluding those pesky Blacks, who just won't go away, will they? Never you mind, you will sooner or later annihilate them, once and for all). The statistics are fascinating. Fewer than 0% white Americans ever get raped and tortured in foreign, American-run prisons. Fewer than 0% of white Americans ever get their harbors mined, suffer foreign-backed military coups, and the list goes on! Not to mention that fewer than 0% Americans civilians ever get shot dead by American Marines in Haditha. Remember that? Hell, who needs God when one has got an American passport? And white to boot? White Americans almost walk on water in this world. Let's see what they do in the next. So it's just natural that Gods like you have forgotten that there are real people out there who have it a tinsy, teeny bit harder. See, they're dealing with war and genocide, don't cha know. Draught and famine brought on by the total destruction of ecosystems. Rape by UN soldiers. Destruction of their national infrastructure. Despoilment of their land and resources. Displacement and refugeeism. God comes in handy in such cases. Cynical personalities such as you are really tiresome, watching but never participating. Cuz you LOVE to watch. The thing that really offends you is the vulnerability that some people are willing to demonstrate. How dare they bare their souls, prostrate themselves to Beings Unknown in YOUR UNIVERSE? Come on, get in the mix! Start suffering like a dog and you'll soon find God fun, fun, fun!

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