Militant atheism is relations to politics.
|
|
As Bill Clinton once asked, "Why do Christians hate so much?" I ask the same question about some atheists. Why do some atheists hate so much?
As a UU atheist, I find it distasteful that some atheists show such a disdain for religion that they won't allow themselves to be associated with religious people, nor are they willing to listen to the religious.
While they advocate equality, they seem to want to exclude religious people in all things that they do. In fact, they see themselves as being better and smarter than the religious.
Whereas Christians treat the non-believers with care and a concern of them "going to hell," for not believing, the atheists are just the opposite - they treat their counterparts as second-class, uneducated citizens.
While I don't believe in a higher power - to include Jesus, I recognize the goodness of religions. For all the bad it's done, there is also goodness in Christianity and all religions. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
The truth is that America is big enough for both science and religion, and that Christians truly believe in their religion, and only want the best for everyone - including the non-believers.
It's too bad I can't say the same for some atheists. Zealotry is zealotry, whether it's atheism or Christianity. Some atheists are just as good for America as Fred Phelps.
Thoughts?
As a UU atheist, I find it distasteful that some atheists show such a disdain for religion that they won't allow themselves to be associated with religious people, nor are they willing to listen to the religious.
While they advocate equality, they seem to want to exclude religious people in all things that they do. In fact, they see themselves as being better and smarter than the religious.
Whereas Christians treat the non-believers with care and a concern of them "going to hell," for not believing, the atheists are just the opposite - they treat their counterparts as second-class, uneducated citizens.
While I don't believe in a higher power - to include Jesus, I recognize the goodness of religions. For all the bad it's done, there is also goodness in Christianity and all religions. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
The truth is that America is big enough for both science and religion, and that Christians truly believe in their religion, and only want the best for everyone - including the non-believers.
It's too bad I can't say the same for some atheists. Zealotry is zealotry, whether it's atheism or Christianity. Some atheists are just as good for America as Fred Phelps.
Thoughts?
!
"Whereas Christians treat the non-believers with care and a concern of them "going to hell," for not believing, the atheists are just the opposite - they treat their counterparts as second-class, uneducated citizens."
That's a pretty bold and broad statement to make, and one that I think falls into the category of reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps this is a result of your association with the UUs, or my living in the South and having more associations with the UMC and various Baptist congregations (First, Southern and everything in between), but I've met plenty of Christians who are less concerned with the ultimate fate of my soul than with the effects my sinful ways have on society (*I'm a pro-choice, premarital sex-having, drinkin, liberal, collegiate anti-war Jew).
As to the "uneducated" crack, may I just point out Psalm 14? Link
Ah, that's the key paradox, isn't it: the TRUTH versus the BELIEF. What happens when one contradicts the other--the irresistable force meeting the immovable object?
One of my favorite historical theologians, Rabbi Hillel, is credited with teaching that when religious belief, derived from an inerrant text, contradicts the observable natural truth of the world, the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. Man is fallable, in science and in religion. When the Work of an infallable God and the Word of an infallable God don't seem to match (see also: heliocentricity), the error must logically be in our human interpretations of one or the other.
When our human interpretations of the Work of God--the natural world--are confirmed as TRUTH (or rather, to give falsification its due, when a BELIEF about the natural world is shown as false), it is the duty of those that vociferously defend the Word against the Work--the Belief--to recognize their interpretive error and make an appropriate adjustment in their position to avoid a contradiction of the faith.
I think the problem some atheists have with some Christians in America is that fundamentalism makes many Christians intransignet in the face of TRUTH. FAITH becomes a contrarian force, rather than an inspirational one, in this context.
Much as I hate to have to quote Chinese Communists while discussing religion (I fear it will make my head explode one of these days), in the words of Deng Xiaoping, sometimes it's better to "seek truth from facts." When fundamentalism prevents Truth from being recognized (inherently an anti-intellectual position), a "disdain for religion" is only to be expected.
TRUTH is an irresistible force. FAITH is an immovable object. To quote a musical genius from Savannah, "something's gotta give."
Read Andrew Sullivan's blog lately? He's got a lot of evidence up there about how atheists are perhaps the single most discriminated-against group in our society.
That's such a bland, nonoffensive, pap statement. I agree that plenty of religions have done plenty of good in the world, but must we forget the Wars of Religion in Europe? It doesn't seem like you're being serious about keeping any kind of scorecard, rather simply glossing it over.