How secular humanism is more holy than fundamentalist religion.

[mckitterick]

Conservatives in the US - especially of the evangelical-Christian variety - have been wailing about our nation's plight in this week since the election proved Romney is no kind of savior. An author whose blog I watch (largely out of "I want to understand the other side" motivation) recently linked to this post by a religious teacher trying to

Comments

[kevin_standlee]

I keep reading from people like the person to whom you linked about how religious people are being persecuted, which seems odd because clearly nobody is trying to force them to change their individual beliefs; they have the same right to their own personal beliefs as everyone else. But as near as I make it out, when you've been yourself oppressing other groups, removing your ability to oppress those groups is perceived as persecution by the heretofore top-dog group. In other words, some of these religious people perceive that their existing ability to dictate other people's rights is "normal," and that removing that from them somehow means that they're being oppressed. Hah! They should try real oppression sometime and see how much they like it.

Of course, some of what they're doing might be projection: assuming that the Other will do what they would do if they were In Charge.

[mckitterick]

That's an excellent observation, and borne out time and again whenever you hear an American Christian talking about "religious persecution" or how the US gov't is trying to take away their First Amendment rights.

Really, dominant group? If so, that just means you're not governing yourselves as you prefer, because you're the ones in charge. This is reinforced every time a public official uses the word "God" or such.

[tully01]

#5 has always been one my favorites, in terms of rebutting the anti-whatever hate-whatever arguments of fundies. "Where is that in the Gospels?" I ask. And they go on and on about Leviticus or one of Paul's paranoid rants against Roman society of the time, and I point out those aren't the Gospels. That's when they usually lose it entirely.

[mckitterick]

I just can't get my mind around this one. Are they "Christian"? If so, why? I mean, if you don't care for what Jesus preached (as documented by his followers), and you want to be part of an organized church, why don't you pick a different religion? Humans have invented plenty over the millennia.

[tully01]

Why follow the Gospels when you can use the rest of the testaments to be a hater? Hating is so satisfying, you know. Witness partisan politics, a religion in its own right.

[mckitterick]

That's just sad. But, I fear, accurate.

[lingster1]

Chris, have you read any of Bishop Spong's work? The Episcopal church prides itself on being a "big tent," but Spong verges on the heretical as far as some are concerned. I'm working my way through the books and finding his thoughts on this problem very helpful.

[mckitterick]

That sounds interesting, Sheila. I should check it out!

[carmy_w]

The day after the election, a relative of my husband's put up a FB post that effectively said that Obama getting elected was a sign of the end times, because blahblahblah Israel take over the US, or some such rot.

He (my husband, that is) has several step-brothers who were steeped in fundamentalist Baptist ideology from the cradle, and believe it without reservation. I'm just glad they all live down South. And I'm also very glad that Dean has a good head on his shoulders WRT that sort of thing; he is firmly in the court that if God didn't want us to learn and think, he'd have kept us on the mental level of the nonsentient animals.

[mckitterick]

God didn't want us to learn and think, he'd have kept us on the mental level of the nonsentient animals

Hear frakkin' hear! The whole "original sin" thing beginning with Adam and Eve discovering knowledge, be that right from wrong or how we evolved from single-cell organisms, has always seemed absurd to me, even when I was firmly in the religious camp.

[carmy_w]

I've always been extremely grateful to my parents for raising me in a church organization that prided itself on it's learning, and has continued to grow and reach out to all sorts of people (the United Church of Christ

[mckitterick]

The way you describe your church is why I don't have negative feelings toward all organized religion. Sounds like a positive place!

Comment, part 1

[clevermanka]

Many of your points are, you know, things that are in the Bible. So the believers, fundamentalists or not, certainly have precedent on which to base their faith.

1) Fundamental religionists ... hope to establish religious states not only where they live but to spread their fundamentalism across the world.

Evangelism of some sort is present throughout the Old and New Testaments. In the former, it was perfectly acceptable to take over lands and instill your own god(s)--even though the Israelites didn't care for it when it was done to them, it was perfectly acceptable for them to do unto others. They were getting their instruction from God, after all. And the latter is nearly entirely devoted to the story of spreading the gospel as far as possible--the last book being a cautionary tale of what will happen to those terrible people who didn't listen.

2) Those who do not believe as they do are wrong in the eyes of their respective gods, lost, and therefore unworthy of respect.See item one. If it's acceptable, encouraged even, to convert

Re: Comment, part 1

[mckitterick]

I get it: You're saying that my Platonic ideal of Christianity (see what I did there?) is incorrect because non-heretical Christianity is all about the things most people wish it weren't? That it's not and never claimed to be anything more than an Old Testament-lovin', New Testament-verbalizin' sheep-like mass? That was fun to type. But, seriously, you don't think Christianity could be something worthy? Maybe not, now that I reflect on my own experience. But it's funny; some people I love and respect find a lot of comfort and happiness in Christianity. There must be SOMETHING good about it....

Re: Comment, part 1

[clevermanka]

you don't think Christianity could be something worthy?

No, I don't.

some people I love and respect find a lot of comfort and happiness in Christianity

That doesn't make them unworthy of love and respect. However, if they are honestly good people, they are not good people because of their religion. They could/would be good people given an alternate moral compass method.

There is no religion that makes up for in goodness all the negative baggage that goes along with it.

Re: Comment, part 1

[mckitterick]

Well, then, I get your message! Didn't realize you were of quite that slant against Christianity. I'd love to hear more on why, beyond its hypocrisy.

I agree that good Christians are almost certainly good not because of that external force, but I also feel that any community of people striving to better themselves and supporting one another in those efforts can lead toward healthy things. Just too bad it has to take the form of organized religion, with its inherent displacement of agency, as you described.