Jesus Wept, And No Wonder By Christ

New at Reason: Cathy Young sticks up for heretics.

[Update: As Msgr. Joe Boyle helpfully points out in the comments section, my flowery language got the better of me: I should have said "nonbelievers," not "heretics."]

Comments

[joe]

A heretic is someone who claims to be in communion with a church, while publicly dissenting from official doctrine. Like me, and virtually all of my American Catholic brethren.

Young is standing up for non-believers. Heretics are by definition believers.

But it's a good piece anyway.

[Jean Bart]

Cathy,

We are not heretics; heathen is a more approrpriate term.

Main Entry: heathen
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen
Date: before 12th century
1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible
2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person
- hea?then?dom /-d&m/ noun
- hea?then?ism /-[th]&-"ni-z&m/ noun
- hea?then?ize /-[th]&-"nIz/ transitive verb

Main Entry: her?e?tic
Pronunciation: 'her-&-"tik
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a dissenter from established church dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2 : one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : NONCONFORMIST

[thoreau]

Cathy Young makes a good point (as always): As religious as Americans claim to be, there is no uniform political opinion among religious people. Yes, yes, I know, there are some big loudmouths out there who think the GOP is God's Own Party. But they aren't the only religious voters out there. Come with me to a Catholic church some day. I'll show you all sorts of people:

-a "religious left" concerned with "economic justice" (this branch of the church wants Econ 101 textbooks put on the Index)
-people who vote solely on gynecological issues (abortion, stem cells, contraception, etc.)
-an obnoxious heretic who thinks Jesus was rather unimpressed by politics (that would be me)
-people who are vehemently anti-war (can I get a shout out for John Paul II? aw yeah!)
-people who supported the war in Iraq (yes, there are a few)
-William Bennett (nuf said!)

So good luck at finding unanimous political opinions among Christians. We can't even get this particular denomination to agree on anything other than white-hot anger at child molesters who dare to call themselves priests. (However angry the non-Catholics might be, I can assure you that we Catholics are even angrier.)

[Equality 7-2521]

While individual Catholics might be plenty angry at the molesting priests, they don't seem angry enough at the Church which protected them.

Any organization which would cover up a known child molester and unleash him on a new set of children is pure evil.

[Dan]

A religious test for public office is a set of *government* religious standards that must be met by any candidate for that office. The (admittedly irritating) fact that most Americans don't fully trust non-religious folks does not equate to an actual, legal requirement for religiousness.

As a parallel: the Constitution guarantees a right to free speech. Yet a candidate whose campaign slogan is "American Voters are a Bunch of Stupid Assholes" will be unelectable... based purely on his speech!

Anyway, we've had plenty of non-religious Presidents. Hell, the first Republican President, Lincoln, was nonreligious (although as President of a religious nation he frequently made use of religious imagery for political purposes).

[thoreau]

But how many Presidents have been openly non-religious?

I agree that a public preference for (seemingly) religious Presidents doesn't constitute a formal religious test. Still, just because some phenomenon arises in the free market or in open society doesn't mean that people shouldn't complain about it. So often on this forum I'll hear people say "Oh, but that wasn't a government decision, so we shouldn't criticize it." Nonsense. I'm also part of the market and an open society, and I'm going to use my economic and political freedom to criticize all sorts of things that the government didn't do. I'll criticize the freely made choices of my fellow citizens, and I'll refuse to spend money at businesses that decided of their own free will to do things that I don't like.

And I think Cathy Young's commentary was in the same vein. She never suggested that Dean's religious troubles amount to imposition of theocracy, she just lamented that religion plays a role in campaigns. That's all.

[Jean Bart]

thoreau,

Is it possible for an atheist to be a U.S. President? And if not, what does that say about the U.S.?

[thoreau]

Jean Bart-

An atheist could certainly be elected President of the US as long as he kept it to himself and publicly professed Christian affiliation. In fact, for all we know it may have already happened on multiple occasions. (If somebody believes that he himself is God, what would the word for that be? Cuz more than a couple of those 43 liars have acted as though they are God.)

What does that say about us? Um, it says that too many Americans have really dumb views on religion and politics.

[davidf]

lincoln attended services at the 4th st (ave?) presbyterian church in dc.

[Jean Bart]

thoureau,

The word "God" is used quite a lot by US politicians (and business people too). I would say that it tends to perplex Europeans.

[thoreau]

Jean Bart-

Just remember that half the time they're using the word God to refer to themselves, but pretending otherwise. "God wants this to happen" means "I want this to happen."

It isn't an abundance of faith on our part, just an abundance of ego.

[Swamp Justice]

Do any EU nations have openly atheist leaders?

[Jean Bart]

Swamp Justice,

Aleksander Kwasniewski, President of Poland, is openly atheist. Don't tell Bush. 🙂

[Jean Bart]

CHRISTIANS REFUSE TO LISTEN TO ATHEIST

Several City Council members in Charleston, South Carolina, USA, have walked out of a meeting to protest an atheist giving the invocation. Some of the half-dozen or so Charleston City Council members who left the meeting on Tuesday said their religious beliefs compelled them to leave.

"I think it's outrageous behaviour," said Herb Silverman, a College of Charleston maths professor and atheist who was invited by a council member to give an 'invocation' at a time usually taken up with prayers.

"What would we say if the first time an African-American got up to speak at City Council, a bunch of whites walked out, or if a rabbi got up to give an invocation and a bunch of people got up to leave?"

But councilman Wendell Gilliard said the idea of an atheist giving the invocation was particularly wrong when war is going on in Iraq. "We've got young men and young women over there fighting for our principles, based on God," he said. "I think it's about time we started standing up for something in this country."

The invocation is a tradition at council meetings, and council members take turns performing it. Occasionally, council members will invite a pastor to give the invocation. In this case, Councilman Kwadjo Campbell invited Silverman to speak in his place after Silverman asked for the opportunity.

Campbell, who is not an atheist, said he felt that Silverman had a right to be heard, but that other council members had a right to leave if they wanted. Silverman said an invocation is not necessarily a prayer and can be a way to give advice.

In this case, he briefly talked about minorities' rights and the need to treat everyone with "respect and dignity." He ended with quotes from Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman.

Silverman, president of the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, has been in the news before for tackling issues involving the relationship of church and state. Several council members stayed during the invocation, and some said they felt like they at least should hear what Silverman had to say.

[Swamp Justice]

Why would an atheist even WANT to given an "invocation" to some religious fundamentalist? But when I read he was "president of the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry", I was not surprised. Silverman was trolling!

[Jean Bart]

Swamp Justice,

Yes, it was all the atheists fault! 🙂

[Dan]

Is it possible for an atheist to be a U.S. President?

Well, we've had four Unitarian Presidents: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft. Unitarians aren't Christians and aren't required to believe in God; draw your own conclusions from that.

I think that a person who openly proclaimed a lack of belief in God would probably not be elected. It's hard to say for sure, though. Supposedly some huge percentage of Americans polled say that they would never elect an atheist, but I've always suspected that was definitional. A lot of people wrongly assume that "atheist" means "amoral libertine who hates religious people".

And if not, what does that say about the U.S.?

That we're a democracy in which religious people dramatically outnumber atheists. I'd certainly be more inclined to vote for a politician who openly admitted to being an atheist, because I consider atheism to be a pretty strong indicator of intelligence and education; I can hardly begrudge Christians for doing the same sort of thing.

lincoln attended services at the 4th st (ave?) presbyterian church in dc

I attended church for many years, and I've been an atheist since the day I was born.

Lincoln made a public show of Christian faith (particularly since there was a surge in religious sentiment during the Civil War), but he belonged to no church, and in private correspondance (and among friends) identified himself as non-Christian and non-religious. Indeed, his law partner stated that Lincoln regularly flirted with outright atheism.

[dj of raleigh]

> Do we now have a religious test for public office?something that was explicitly rejected by the Founders of the United States of America? a politician cannot be an open secularist
without paying a penalty at the polls In a Gallup poll last year, 60 percent of Americans said that religious leaders should not try to influence public policy on abortion. The state of political discourse today seems to reduce them to second-class citizens

[Jean Bart]

dj of raleigh,

"A politician cannot be an open fundamentalist
without paying a penalty at the polls, either."

In some portions of the U.S. that is not a problem; think of the judge in Alabama - he is quite fundamentalist and quite loved.

[ed]

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr
Aug. 10, 1787

[Jefferson]

Jefferson also did that wacky thing where he took the bible and removed all of the miracles, turning it into an odd self-contradictory novel.

[ed]

And let's not forget that nearly forgotten Founding Father, Thomas Paine, who by his own admission was NOT an atheist but wrote (while confined within a French prison) at the very beginning of "The Age Of Reason":

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

John Adams allegedly called Paine "...that filthy atheist." Even great men find themselves pulled into the sewer when confronted by even greater atheists.

[dj of raleigh]

"A politician cannot be an open fundamentalist
without paying a penalty at the polls, either."

> In some portions of the U.S. that is not a problem; think of the judge in Alabama - he is quite fundamentalist and quite loved.

[Pavel]

Good article in the NYT a while back by my favorite philosopher (who was interviewed by Reason recently, I believe).

Located here.

Something worth thinking about. Whether atheism needs to go through a "coming out" process like feminism or gay rights.

As with most things, politics will be the last to catch on to a cultural trend like "nonbeliever's rights." And as with many important cultural trends, its already growing in the nation's Universities.

[Warren]

sef-contradictory? What an odd characterization. I thought he made a coherent novel out of self-contradictory scripture.

[Dan]

"A politician cannot be an open fundamentalist
without paying a penalty at the polls, either."

In some portions of the U.S. that is not a problem; think of the judge in Alabama - he is quite fundamentalist and quite loved.

In some portions of the United States being an atheist isn't a problem, either -- NYC, San Francisco (most of the Bay Area, really), and Los Angeles, for example.

[Warren]

Dan,
Can you name any elected office holders that are self proclaimed atheists?

[thoreau]

Maybe it would be most accurate to say that a President cannot be an open atheist, but in certain places a politician can be an open atheist. The President has to appeal to a broader array of people than even a governor or Senator.

However, I disagree that a politician can't be an open fundamentalist and still be elected President. Bush might not spout the more controversial fundamentalist tenets in most of his speeches, but his fundamentalist leanings are no secret either. He just has to mute it a little in his speeches. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that an atheist would have to keep it a secret to be elected President. Even if he didn't talk about it in his speeches, once word got out it would hurt him.

What does this mean? It means that the religious influence in this country is still much stronger than the secular influence. Doesn't mean we're a theocracy (sorry, Ashcroft, you'll just have to wait a little longer), but in politics the secularists have less power than the fundamentalists.

[thoreau]

Ooh, to steal a favorite libertoid catch phrase:

A republic, not a theocracy!

[dj of raleigh]

> While individual Catholics might be plenty angry at the molesting priests, they don't seem angry enough at the Church which protected them.

[Warren]

Of course the really disturbing thing is, that it's an entirely false premises. Politicians professing their religious beliefs are like prostitutes professing their celibacy. When a politician talks about how moral he is, he's either lying outright, or worse yet, believes he was chosen by God to smite evil doers and remake the world according to His divine plan. Said plan revealed of course to said nut-case through the usual methods (i.e. hidden meaning found in scripture, prayer induced hallucination, the ever popular dream sequence etc.)

Of course secularists can be equally loathsome, but at least they're not scumbags by definition.

[dj of raleigh]

> she just lamented that religion plays a role in campaigns.

[dj of raleigh]

CHRISTIANS REFUSE TO LISTEN TO ATHEIST

As atheists can do in prayers,
the religious people could have stayed
and kept their heads up and eyes open.

But it sounds like the interloper
wanted to create some clamor, and got his way,
while the councilman who left the door ajar,
got some satisfaction from the shake up,
and those who walked out got their notoriety,
and the ones who stayed and listened to the one,
got little notice, and probably went wee, wee, wee, all the way home.

[TJ]

"Even the non-religious trust religious people more."

Umm, not this atheist. No way, no how.

"Being an atheist or anti-religion would fly better if they had more soup kitchens and clothes closets.A few St. Agnostic Hospitals and Unitarian Universities or Lapsed Catholic Orphanages wouldn't hurt either."

I suspect atheist institutions like these would not have a broad enough fiscal base to compete. I note that where atheism is common (East Germany), few of those types of institutions are religious.

Regarding an earlier discussion, it's a shame that of the examples of strongly secular presidents, none were in the last half century.

[TJ]

" The question is uncomfortable, and it might be best, for 'second class citizens' to become comfortable with their irregiliousness. That same lack of comfort in themselves,..."

What utter bullshit. Kinda like saying: "blacks ought to become comfortable with their color".

Having spent some quality time in East Germany, I can tell you I felt right at home with the natives scientific, naturalistic worldview. Folks there are just as warm and caring as here, they just don't have the superstition baggage. Pretty cool.

[ed]

Pavel,

Nonbelievers have rights, except the right to buy beer before 1 p.m. on Sunday.

Seriously, is God really all that offended if I stock up on booze BEFORE the Big Game?

[thoreau]

I see problems with atheist soup kitchens.

There are indeed privately run soup kitchens, battered women's shelters, etc. that operate without a formal religious affiliation. However, churches are natural sources of donations and volunteers, so you'll often find churches doing donation drives for these charities. It's good for a charity to cultivate relationships with churches, even if the charity is not itself religious.

There's nothing that says a homeless shelter run by an atheist can't cultivate those same relationships. However, that would be strange if the goal of the shelter is to produce good PR for atheism. Imagine what happens when the nice pastor from down the street comes to the shelter with a big truckload of clothing and canned food, hoping to welcome a new charity to the neighborhood. If he gets an indifferent reception, or any explanation that "Well, sir, this is an atheist shelter, we're trying to avoid religious ties", you can rest assured that next Christmas...um, I mean, Solstice, his congregation will donate blankets and toys to the Salvation Army shelter instead of the atheist shelter. And they can do it without any guilt, because the blankets are still going to people in need.

Not a good way to generate goodwill in the community, when you alienate a natural source of volunteers and donations. And since your goal is to generate good PR for atheism, it's inevitable that your atheist activism will come up. That's sort of the point, right?

And even potential donors or volunteers who aren't religious (perhaps even outright atheists) will be reluctant to donate to a shelter that spurned useful ties just to make a point. The donor usually wants to see his money help homeless people rather than an organization more concerned with PR than charity.

In general, starting a charity for reasons of PR is not a good move. Donating for PR is of course common, but the resources are transferred from people interested in PR to people who are (hopefully) interested in charity. It's a form of economic specialization: The charity handles the part about helping the needy, and the donor in search of PR handles the PR.

Probably the best way to generate good PR for atheism is to simply be a good person and be open about your atheism, but don't go around proclaiming as loudly as possible that you're an atheist or turning charity into PR, because you'll just annoy people.

[thoreau]

Oh, I might add that fundamentalists get a lot of bad PR because they go around proclaiming as loudly as possible that they are Christians. Yes, we know, but there's no need to get all self-righteous about it.

So strident atheism will go over like a ton of bricks, but that will be because of the strident part, not the atheism part.

I will, however, grant that fundamentalists still do better at the polls than strident atheists. Probably just a matter of numbers, because both groups are really annoying.

[dj of raleigh]

In an election between a Muslim and atheist,
I suspect the atheist would win today in the USA.

In an election between Jim Baker and an atheist,
I suspect that the atheist would win again.

In an election between a regular church goer like Carter,
and one of these: George Carlin, Woody Allen, Marlon Brando, Noam Chomsky, Fidel Castro, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Gore Vidal, Karl Marx, Freud, Einstein, Stalin, Chaplin, Mao Tse-tung, and dare I say, Hitler, whom no one wants to claim commonality. Carter would win.

In truth, it is easy to suspect that in reality, a very tiny majority of humans are truly religious.

I still cling to the belief that politicians are human.

[Brian Carnell]

Of course an open atheist could not be elected president. Neither could a transvestite. And who cares? What does it say about voters? That they won't vote for transvestite atheists.

[Jean Bart]

dj of raliegh,

The fact is that your statement was wrong.

[Dan]

Politicians professing their religious beliefs are like prostitutes professing their celibacy.

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Prostitutes are, by definition, non-celibate. There is nothing inherently contradictory about religious sentiment and a career in politics.

You're also ignoring the fact that most Christians believe that all humans, Christians included, are inherently sinful. Why the heck do you think Catholics have Confession? Because they expect to fuck up! Calling yourself a Christian doesn't mean you're claiming to be perfectly moral. The only perfectly moral being, in Christian teaching, is God.

When a politician talks about how moral he is

I'm not sure what politicians you're referring to. Even politicians who regularly bring up their religious faith, such as Bush and Lieberman, don't spend time talking about "how moral they are". They spend a lot of time saying that religion is vitally important to morality, certainly. But what of it? I spend a lot of time saying that the free exchange of ideas is vital to the welfare of humanity; that doesn't mean I'm holding *myself* up as some sort of wonderful crusader for human rights.

he's either lying outright, or worse yet, believes he was chosen by God to smite evil doers and remake the world according to His divine plan

It sounds like you're suffering from Uptight Atheist Syndome. I was a long-term UAS sufferer during the 80s and early 90s; I recognize the symptoms. Eventually you realize that Christians aren't actively malicious, but just kind of mildly annoying, and life in America becomes a much more enjoyable experience. 🙂

[Dan]

There are indeed privately run soup kitchens, battered women's shelters, etc. that operate without a formal religious affiliation.

Um, those would be "atheist charities", in the strict sense of the word. If it's not theistic, it's atheistic. Being an atheist is like not being a Mormon -- it doesn't mean you hate Mormons, it doesn't mean you feel a need to reverse the spread of Mormonism, and it doesn't mean you refuse to associate with Mormons. You just don't happen to be one.

Some charities are motivated by belief in God. Others aren't. The latter group are "atheist charities".

There really aren't many charities aimed at "promoting" atheism, because atheists don't share any common beliefs. Organizing atheists is like organizing people with nothing in common except a belief that there's no life on Mars. Can you picture a food bank whose goal was spreading a lack of belief in Martian life?

[TWC]

The word "Heretic" is fine. Too many split hairs spoil the soup and all that.

Heretic may not technically be the exact term that should have been used, but the point is clear. Every single person reading the term knew exactly what Cathy meant. If they didn't, they couldn't have corrected her.

As to the conclusion that the non-religious seem to be reduced to second class citizens I can only say, to quote Cathy, "What Piffle".

Libertarian types seem to waste vast quantities of energy ranting about threats to our liberty from the religious people in this country. Somehow I just can't seem to ratchet up my paranoia to a fever pitch while stumbling around the house searching for refugees from a bad Phil Collins video that might pop out from under the bed, catch me in a weak moment, and force me at gunpoint to utter the Lord's Prayer.

Now if you wanna talk about black helicopters.........

[ed]

Just for kicks, gather several news reports on mass murders. Replace every mention of "fundamentalist", "extremist", "separatist", etc. with "atheist." Read out loud. Laugh at the absurdity.

Here's a sample from today's news:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's most influential ATHEIST Friday urged his followers to stop holding demonstrations for early elections until a U.N. team decides whether polls are feasible.

Underlining the U.S. concerns, a bomb planted at an Iraqi Communist Party office Thursday killed two men in an apparent attack on supporters of the U.S.-backed ATHEISTS.

Nine other people including two American soldiers were killed in attacks by pro-Saddam Hussein ATHEISTS on U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and Iraqi police in an upsurge of violence after relative calm during the last two weeks.

[jon b.]

The collection plate is being passed in church. When it gets one man he stands up and says to the preacher, ?I made this thousand dollars from selling drugs. Do you want it? After thinking for a moment the preacher snatches the bill away from the man and says, ?Well, I guess it?s been in the devil?s possession long enough!?

Yes, I am concerned about the logic of someone who thinks that the result of questioning God?s universal love is being roasted in hell forever.

[jon b.]

The collection plate is being passed in church. When it gets one man he stands up and says to the preacher, ?I made this thousand dollars from selling drugs. Do you want it? After thinking for a moment the preacher snatches the bill away from the man and says, ?Well, I guess it?s been in the devil?s possession long enough!?

Yes, I am concerned about the logic of someone who thinks that the result of questioning God?s universal love is being roasted in hell forever.

[Terrence Bucker]

Since when isn't communism a bona-fide religion? Replace "thou shalt not have any other gods before you" with "religion is the opiate of the masses," (fucking wicked semantic trickery!) "the afterlife" with "the future," "heaven" with "the (ideal) communist state," "Satan" with "the bourgeoisie" and "God" with "the proletariat."

Stalin was certainly not a communist believer - he was either an athiest or beleived that he was himself God (a fine line). I suspect that many of the worst figures in history were also like Stalin in this respect, but the point is that his power wouldn't have been achieved if most people were (in a true sense) athiest.

[kevrob]

I ran for local office some years ago, and was on a TV show produced by a local community activist/poverty pimp, along with several of my opponents. I did not realize that the lady hosting the panel, besides running a local jobs-training/graft-laundering operation was a "church lady." After asking us all various policy-related questions, she requested that each guest state their religious affiliation. This was well before Bill Clinton was a national figure, but I think he would have been proud of the way I greased my way through the interview. "I was raised Catholic, educated in the Catholic shools, and graduated from [the local Jesuit] University," said I, and there was no follow-up. I never actually claimed to be a practicing Catholic, and no cocks crowed. My campaign manager, a family man, went to Mass regularly with the wife & kiddies. He was furious with me for not plainly stating that I was a Catholic. "But, Phil" sez I, "I'm not one anymore. Did you want me to lie about that? Plenty of my friends know I'm an atheist." If there was the slightest chance of an opponent wanting to brand me an atheist, they could have. Given the few votes I received, no one would have bothered, of course.

At least I didn't make myself the target of the likes of this guy:

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2004/01/09/news/00lead.txt

When it came to filling out candidate questionaires, I quite enjoyed not giving answeris about what religion, if any, I espoused. Groups often send forms out with fill-in-the-blank biographical sections, that frequently had a space for religion. Stifling the impulse to respond "Druid (Reformed)," I'd just leave those blank. No one complained.

The most oily response I ever heard was from a lefty-greenie type of candidate who "didn't identify with just one organized religion," but who considered herself "a very spiritual person." A good portion of the rubes must have eaten that up, judging by the sales of New Age crap.

Kevin

[Jennifer]

When I was a kid, and a believer, and I imagined God judging the souls of the dead to determine whether or not they go to heaven, I always thought that atheists who behave themselves were MORE deserving of Heaven than the believers. After all, doing good with no expectation of a reward is far more moral that doing good because you're earning brownie points for Heaven, or scared of going to Hell.

As an intelligent-but-naive 8-year-old, I honestly didn't understand why this question so infuriated my Sunday-school teacher. "Suffer the little children," indeed.

[dj of raleigh]

dj of raliegh,
The fact is that your statement was wrong.---Jean Bart
=======
Hard to argue with you Jean!
What fact would that be?
And what statement would that be?

[dj of raleigh]

"Being an atheist or anti-religion would fly better if they had more soup kitchens and clothes closets.A few St. Agnostic Hospitals and Unitarian Universities or Lapsed Catholic Orphanages wouldn't hurt either." -- dj
=======
> I suspect atheist institutions like these would not have a broad enough fiscal base to compete.

[dj of raleigh]

> I always thought that atheists who behave themselves were MORE deserving of Heaven than the believers.

[joe]

Tim,

Absolution granted

🙂

[Russ D]

If I can add to the semantic bantering...

joe's probably correct in his distinction between heretic and non-believer.

But doesn't this make Dean a heretic then? In Cathy's article, Dean is quoted as saying "I certainly see him as the son of God." She also paraphrases him as saying he doesn't go to church "very often".

Would a non-believer believe Jesus to be the son of God? Would a non-beleiver even go to church once in a while?

I think "non-believer" is some abstract thing that probably doesn't exist; if a real non-believer does exist it's more akin to "atheist" than anything else, and Dean certainly doesn't claim to be an atheist.

Maybe I'm really asking joe for a definition of my own status. I was raised Catholic but I haven't been to "church" voluntarily for ten years. (I don't consider weddings and funerals "going to church".) Does this make me a heretic, or have I been transformed from heretic to non-believer status now?

[joe]

Do you consider yourself a Catholic? Do you claim to be one? If so, grab yourself a fire extinguisher, you are a heretic.

[joe]

If not, you are an "apostate" - one born into a religion, who later rejects it.

You know how Eskimos have lots of words for snow...

[dhex]

like the old bumper sticker sez:

"apostates do it until the angry villagers with torches set them on fire" 🙂

"spiritual" may be the most pointlessly vague self-description you can use. though i can think of more than a few people to whom it applies, having no organizational tendencies but approaching certain aspects of their life with reverentiality and even fervor in a ritualized context (consciously or not).

america has a very odd religious framework and set of assumptions about that framework. the idea that politicians in new york city, for example, are any less embracing of religion and religious services is funny, to say the least. if anything, there are more established and varied religions to pander to than anywhere else.

[Jennifer]

Has anybody pointed out that if Bin Laden were an atheist, the World Trade Center would still be here?

[dhex]

maybe.

maybe not.

though you're probably right.

[joe]

Jennifer, you mean if he had turned to Stalinism instead of Wahabbiism?

[thoreau]

Dan-

OK, I guess those are in a literal sense atheist charities. My point is that at some point in this thread it was said "atheists would have better PR if there were some atheist charities", but setting up a charity solely for PR value is rarely a good idea. If your goal is to maintain a particular identity for the charity then you'll wind up alienating people rather than making friends. And since making friends was the whole goal of the endeavor, well, it sort of backfires.

[Steven Crane]

"And even potential donors or volunteers who aren't religious (perhaps even outright atheists) will be reluctant to donate to a shelter that spurned useful ties just to make a point."

Don't many Christian benevolent organizations refuse donations that are the fruits of a lottery windfall, extremely good night at the slot machines, etc., for being the wages of sin?

[thoreau]

Before somebody accuses Joe of equating Stalinism with atheism, I think what Joe means is this: Bin Laden is a violent sociopath. One way or another he's going to latch on to a violent ideology and use it to "justify" mass murder. If he wasn't religious he would have found some violent ideology that doesn't involve religion.

[TJ]

"Has anybody pointed out that if Bin Laden were an atheist, the World Trade Center would still be here?"

Well, in the world at large, Richard Dawkins famously did. See: http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09-18misguidedmissiles.shtml

Although, the point isn't that an athiest couldn't be as evil as Bin Laden. The point is that finding an enticement for 20 atheists to immolate themselves is likely to be immpossible.

[Jennifer]

DJ--
I know that the whole point of Christian virtue is to have faith, which is why even as an eight-year-old I had serious problems with the idea. I pictures Jesus as a spoiled, petulant five-year-old brat: "Okay, lessee. In life, you donated all your money to the poor, and on ten separate occasions you risked your life so others could live, but--" (lower lip starts trembling) "--you didn't worship me! WAAAA! You can just go to Hell! And I mean that literally."

Christ, even Veruca Salt wasn't that much of a bitch. You know your religion's fucked up when the Willy Wonka brats are better behaved than your god.

[dj of raleigh]

> I pictures Jesus as a spoiled, petulant five-year-old brat....Christ, even Veruca Salt wasn't that much of a bitch.

[Jennifer]

DJ--
No doubt. But for all my faults and bitcheries, I would never torture a person just because they chose not to kiss my magnolia-white butt.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"Don't know what your church believed,
but good works won't get you into Heaven
by most books about it. Faith is everything.
Good works follows faith."

That's pretty straight Protestant doctrine.

The Pope probably would disagree.

[joe]

"...the point is that his power wouldn't have been achieved if most people were (in a true sense) athiest."

The bit about "in a true sense" is where you fall apart. If the Inquisitors were Christian "in the true sense," they wouldn't have tortured people. Ditto for the Japanese, if they had been Buddhists "in the true sense." You can play that game on both sides - the virtuous are examples of your faith's viture, while the destructive are not believers "in the true sense."

[dj of raleigh]

> But for all my faults and bitcheries, I would never torture a person just because they chose not to kiss my magnolia-white butt.

[dj of raleigh]

> Don't know if anyone is reading a post so old,

[Jennifer]

Yes, there are many verses you can quote about the kindness of Jesus, and then I'll quote verses showing that Jesus is either evil, or woefully ignorant about the world (believing it's flat, the sun revolves around it, etc.)

Don't know if anyone is reading a post so old, but there's an online article that explains it perfectly:

http://www.baddaystudio.com/evilchristianpoem.html

And I'll admit; as bad as Christianity is, Islam is worse. If Jesus is Veruca Salt, then Mohammed is Damien Thorn.