Just last week, we set up a new feature at Irregular Times, allowing people who’ve got a microphone attached or built into their computer to record an audio message just by clicking a link like this, in their own handy-dandy web browser. Our idea was to allow another avenue by which we all could communicate, sure, but more than that we hoped that people would contribute such beautiful sonic oddities that we’d feel the compulsion to share right here.
Well, gosh and crackers, our wish has come true. Some anonymous little Pavarotti (is that a Pavarottette? a Pavarottini?) has contributed a short little ode (an odette? An odina?). At any rate, here it is, and it’s a beaut:
“You Won’t Be Laughing When You Stand Before the Judgment Throne of Jesus”
This is clearly the end line, the righteous summation, of one humdinger of a tune. I’ve googled it and can’t find any reference to the lyric, so it appears that it was composed just for us, probably in response to our posts on laughter and fundamentalism.
I love it, but I want to know: how does the rest of the song go?
Challenge time! Can you fill in the remainder of the lyrics? Or, h-e-double-toothpicks, just a single chorus or verse? I promise, if you help, that within a few days we’ll have ourselves a bona fide fake fundamentalist satire song for the fun of it. On top of that, I promise to pull out my guitar and give you a real screechy voice to go with it on a bona fide fake fundamentalist recording.
Maybe you don’t want that, but it’s the best (or worst) I’ve got to give. Come on, let’s have some fun. Gimme some lyrics!
I couldn’t find this lyric in 4 different hynmals of different denominations going back to 1935. It doesn’t sound genuine to me because in our tradition at least, the hymns follow theological themes from the church calendar. But then, I don’t really run in those religious circles.
Instead I offer the hymn sung in our church the week of the Iraqi invasion (followed by the weekly demonstra…er, weekly prayer vigil at City Hall, of course). The lyrics are Lloyd Stone, the melody Jean Sibelius’ “Finlandia.”
This is my song, O God of all the nations;
A song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
Here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine;
But other hearts in other lands are beating
With hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.
My country’s skies are bluer than the ocean,
And sunlight beams on cloverleaf and pine.
But other lands have sunlight too, and clover,
And skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
Oh, hear my song, thou God of all the nations,
A song of peace for their land and for mine.
Hm… I’d give it a shot if it weren’t such a flat and tuneless “song”…
Oh, give the anonymous tunemeister a break. It’s in a minor key. That makes for all sorts of possible forebodings.
Wow. That’s somber. Sort of reminds me what nudged me away from Christianity in the first place. Not only are we endowed from birth with an unavoidable death sentence, but then it gets worse?
Layla’s song is much happier. I like that one better.
Mick, in many denominations it’s not supposed to get worse because of grace, as in ‘amazing grace’. Grace is like the difference between a schoolchild that studies because the teacher is standing there with a hickory stick and the student with a teacher that inspires and encourages best work.
Every culture has a religion, even the most remote and isolated culture. This tells me the need for religion is hard-wired. Some individuals are color-blind, some tone-deaf, some not good at sports, some can’t spell but are good at calculus, I think the same must be true of the religious sense. It’s no accident that the mega-churches that market to boomers have their ‘believers service’ on weeknight, but their ‘seekers service’ on primetime Sunday time slot. Or that the people who do 12-step programs find the 6 religious steps the hardest to connnect with. Faith is alsways a struggle for Christians.
There is no proof for God, or for any religion. But here is what I know for sure about religion, that was told to me by an Egyptian Moslem. How does person walk? This is Allah. How person breath? This is Allah. (what is the Arabic for ‘breath’, ‘soul’?– same root consonants!) How hair grow? Allah. The Viking ‘Havamal’ scripture also says we got these gifts from gods. All the anatomy, microbiology, and pathophysiology classes I took were not able to explain movement, life, breath.
In our culture, religion is a combination of conscious and unconsious choices. in the Arab culture, you get religion from your father. So it is okay for a Moslem man to marry Jew (in theory at least) or Christian, but not okay for Moslem woman. Most of the Arabs I knew were not knowlegable about ther religion and didn’t read Koran. But they considered themselves completely Moslem. If some question came up, there would be someone in the family who was a religious scholar.
Several people on this site who claim atheism (not even agnosticism; are they so sure?) also seem to have built-in bullshit detectors. How can they know so definately, and without even stopping to think, whether something is right? could this be Allah?
Well, one definition of “atheism” follows from its etymology: a-theism, without theism. I am an atheist in that sense, since I am someone without any theology.
If you think of the universe as a wheel, the person with a religion places the deity at the center of the wheel, with themselves as one of the spokes. The spokes do not have the pressure of being responsible for the integrity of the wheel. God is at the center, and if one of the spokes is under pressure, the world does not fall apart. Atheists place themselves at the hub of the universe, with the resulting pressure and responsibility for holding together the fabric of the universe.
We’ve already witnessed a resurrection this week, after a crucifixion by infidel hackers. Now maybe some godless liberal pond scum will decide to come down from the mountain with some commandments…
I believe in something higher, to be sure. Mine are unconventional beliefs, incompatible with any of the major theisms. I think the characteristics most religions assign to their gods reflect dysfunctional human personalities in need of intensive therapy. I see god as much bigger than that, and much bigger than any earthly theism could really capture and describe. I believe we’re all a part of that whole, vast entity that none of us adequately understands, and I believe in the distinct possibility I could be really, really wrong.
If god is as big as I think he is, he’s okay with a small “g”, various interpretations, and silly pictures of his prophets. And he’d surely not need us to defend his honor against non-believers.
I sure hope he really is that big. If not, I guess I could be in a bit of trouble.
I like that, Mick. The Bible certainly said some disturbing things about slavery and the status of women. The Old Testament even says if your child disobeys you can take them outside the city gate and stone them to death. This is certainly not compatible with the compassionate God that is the major theme of the New Testament, or for that matter the compassionate Buddha or Allah the Merciful, the Compassionate (Allah al-Rahman, al-Rahheem). I see the Jewish tradition as a collection of stifling laws that ignores compassion for people, but Rabbis today read compassion in their own faith.
But I’m not ready to let Jim off the hook yet. He seems to have a pretty strong internal compass, but like one of the Moslem posters said, what is the base? The alternative is to set yourself up as God. I guess what I’m getting at is: are we ‘taking back the moral high ground’ yet, or should I prepare myself for Cheney in 2008? Maybe I’m asking an unanswerable question.
Layla said:
PARDON ME, but what gives you the secret special super power to tell me what I do or do not believe?
As a matter of fact, you’re wrong, at least about this atheist. See, there’s no “atheist club” where we all get together to decide what our canon will be. That’s the point. We are WITHOUT theism, we don’t get together to decide that God is the hub of a wheel, or an old guy on a cloud, or a burning bush, or all the names of every Tibetan prayer flag that ever touched a sacred cow’s bottom. This atheist has no notion that the universe is a wheel, and has no notion that he can control the fabric of the universe. To the contrary, this atheist often feels rather small and insignificant in the face of the huge scale of what the known universe has been measured by science to be. Sometimes, comforting. Sometimes, frightening. But nothing like what you’re ass-u-me-ing I believe.
If we’re going to talk about arrogance, how arrogant is it for someone to decide they know how the universe works, that it’s a frickin’ wheel or some such, and where God lives in it, without any evidence? Show me the wheel and I’ll apologize. Until then, I think the shoe’s on the other foot.
Layla, you got it obviously wrong about Jim’s beliefs, as he himself has just shown to you. So you might perhaps accept some humble suggestions for the future. Everybody makes mistakes, even you. Hence what really matters is not actually *what* you believe  which can easily be a mistake anyway  but *why* you believe it  which tells what honest *precautions* you have taken against mistakes. It seems to me that, attempting to justify your beliefs, you mostly invoke your own poetical emotions. Yet the common experience of humanity seems to show that emotional beliefs are quite often factually mistaken. Experience itself, and logical reasoning, appear to provide much better reasons to believe in anything  at least tentatively and provisionally  even if sometimes they force you to admit that, ultimately, you just don’t know. So, why not give reason a try?
Generally I go with calling myself an atheist, because I’ve always rather seen humans as insignificant, and as no insult. It’s a huge and magnificent universe, and I’m hardly about to believe it was all put together for a group of mammals that happened to have a lot of spare brain surface area within hairless bodies, the only species with natural back problems.
If pushed, I generally lean towards the multi-god and older religions.
Let’s not forget that the NT’s Jesus supposedly supported Jewish children being killed for cursing their parents:
15:3 But [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Look at your toenail. Could that be Allah?
Scratch your back. Could the stuff that collects underneath your fingernails be Jesus?
Blow your nose. Could that be the kind of surreal message offered by Layla?
If you think of the universe as a cheese danish, the person with religion identifies their deity as the danish, with themselves as the plastic wrapper. Atheists, on the other hand, identify themselves as a danish with the words “Cheese Danish” printed directly on it. What they don’t realize is that the danish doesn’t have words on it at all, the wrapper does. People of faith realize that, although they have the words “Cheese Danish” printed on them, they are not danishes…
If, on the other hand, you think of the universe as a mechanical pencil…
Jim,
No one is insulting your religion, or should I say, your a-religion. So, please don’t chop off my head or burn my embassy just yet.
I am WELL aware that atheists do not have a church where they meet to decide what not to believe in. Not everyone spends much time consciously thinking about their beliefs or even feels comfortable talking about them, but everyone has beliefs, values, and assumptions that have been shaped from childhood, and we respond to the world through the lens of those beliefs.
It certainly looks to me like with this little website you have placed yourself smack dab in the hub of the free-speech cosmology, and in spite of feeling “small, frightened, and insignificant,†you have helped us clarify our thoughts, show respect and restraint, and take back our rights. It also looks to me like a whole lot of people want to strengthen you by becoming “spokes†to help distribute the weight of your burden. I certainly recognize what you have done on this issue, and I thank you for your leadership.
An apology? An admission of wrong-doing? Well, gosh and wool socks, I don’t think I owe you one. I agree with a lot of the stuff you do, but I don’t agree with the intolerance and anger you seem to be showing for religion in general.
In my religious tradition the Great Commandment says we must love our neighbor, including strangers, prisoners, people who mistreat us, people from different religious traditions (I knew you had to be in there somewhere) and people who irritate us and push the boundaries of our patience. Loving these people is not optional; it is mandatory. You have to be part of our world, but I’m not sure we are part of your world. So far there has been a Mohammed cartoon and a Jesus cartoon. I suppose an atheist cartoon is too much of a challenge.
Mario,
You don’t say what your religion is or what it is based on.
My religion (United Methodist) is based on four things: 1) scripture, 2) reason, 3) tradition 4) personal and corporate experience with God. Some of our traditions include strong stands on issues such as slavery, smuggling, humane treatment of prisoners, starting hospitals and shelters for children and the elderly, the founding of Goodwill industries, and an active involvement in efforts for world peace.
In addition, my own home church is one of several “reconciling congregationsâ€Â, that is, we engage in dialogue with the gay community and extend a specific welcome to persons of all sexual orientations and gender identities.
No proof exists for any religion, that’s why they call it faith. All of these things may be mistakes, poetical emotions, or pure fictions, but I hold them in the palm of my hand and gently close my fingers around them.
Hare Trinity,
The passage you are refering to is Matthew 15:3, but it is an entire story and you have to start reading it at Matthew 15:1. It references the old Hebrew law which does indeed say among other harsh thngs that the child that curses father or mother must die.(Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9).
The entire lesson is about clean and unclean. In this story the Jewish lawyers are once again trying to entrap Jesus so they have an excuse to kill him. They point out that he does not perform a ritual washing before he eats, and his answer is that they themselves do not follow their own law. The law says to kill a child that curses his parents, but they permit the child to give an offering (bribe) to avoid the lawful punishment. Jesus does not himself say what he thinks about this law. Jesus goes on to say what goes into the mouth does not make unclean, but what comes out of the mouth, because words come from the heart and reflect evil thoughts, murder,adultery, etc.
I always use this one when Moslems ask me about eating pork, and it is an easy idea to grasp over the language barrier. They see you have an ethic with a good reason behind it, even if it isn’t the same as theirs.
Also your translation is way too old, English language changes over time and word meanings change, and the flow is lost so you have to read it over and over without getting the meaning. New International Version is very readable, but it’s the translation of Pat Robertson, et al. New Revised Standard Version is used by the more mainstream protestant groups.
Layla, do you remember Saul’s (or Paul’s) definition of faith? The “substance” of things you hope and the argument for things you cannot prove. In modern language, this seems to boil down to wishful thinking expressed in illogical terms. The result is under your very eyes: there are very many different and mutually inconsistent faiths. Being logically inconsistent among themselves, you can be certain that they are all false, bar at most one. Yet you choose one at random, and then your next step is an attempt to induce others to make the same unjustified choice you have made. And here you have just two alternatives: either you mislead them with some sort of emotional pressure, or you force them through physical coercion. Historically, the latter has been by far the dominant way  at least with both Christianity and Islam. So what you are curling your fingers on is actually the random result of centuries of blind arrogance, bred by untold blood and suffering and forced ignorance. If only you could see it. Uncurl your fingers, my dear Layla, and just look.
Dear, dear, dear, I seem to have provoked you, Layla. Don’t like being rebuked for making false assumptions? Here’s another one. Of course I’ve already drawn an atheist cartoon. I did it on February 6, in pre-emptive response to claims like yours.
I didn’t ask for an apology. I didn’t ask you for anything. I TOLD you you were wrong.
It sounds like Layla thinks she knows all the answers. I agree with Jim, she is ARROGANT to ass u me she knows anything about atheist and who is she to ” let him off the hook” !
Okay, Layla’s a common poster around here, and always civil, no? I’m sure she didn’t mean to judge prematurely, just phrased herself badly.
I’m not switching sides here, I still stick by my original comment here (indeed, if I hadn’t heard so many Christians take bits of the Bible out of context, I’d have read more into the passage I quoted), I just don’t like to see things turn into an argument when they could stay as a debate.
We DO want more religious people to be willing to at least TRY to think and explain their beliefs. I’ve received insults, even threats, from a fair few who wouldn’t go that far. We don’t want to hear about them just for different views, but because even a highly over-publicised religions are interesting at heart, though it’s hard to tell when you’re arguing with someone who’ll dodge or deny facts over it.
Mario, I did not choose a religion at random, it is my heritage from birth in the same way that Moslems inherit Islam. This religion helped shape my values during the Vietnam era, and is part of the reason I support many of the values expressed on this website.
Within the existential framework, you can either create a world where god exists or where God does not exist. If you chose to create the latter kind of world for yourself, all I can say is, you have to follow your own path and you are welcome to whereever it leads you. You can no more prove the non-existence of God than I can prove the existence of god. I do not seek to proselytize, but it seems that you do.
Okay, Jim, I did see the cartoon at the time, I guess it wasn’t as memorable or as thoughtful as the ones you drew yourself. I guess you’re not going to draw a cartoon about your own religion ..er a-religion.
I’m American, Jim, and Americans question leadership. We just can’t help it. Your website promotes it. So if I question where Dubya is taking us, I must also question where you are taking us and whether you are dividing us where no division really exits. It does not comfort me at all that Dubya says God talks to him. It does comfort me to know that you don’t think God talks to you, and to see your explanation of your religious world view. It makes complete sense. I respect your views, even if I do not share them. Can you show a similar respect?
What I object to is your apparent religion-bashing. Maybe that is not your intention, but that’s how it looks to me. It’s like condeming all Moslems for the actions of Islamists. Our church has been targeted for takeover by the religious right, and our Bishop’s retirement party was even crashed by one of their hired lobbyists. And don’t forget the tax status of All Saints Episcopal in California has been attacked by Dubya’s bunch for its oppostition the war in Iraq. So you see we can be effective too.
This is not a philosphical question, it is a political and pragmatic one. Do you think Obama could have been elected without support from religious progressives? If you want to talk about the religious and political propensities of the ilk of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, I will be giggling right along with you. If you attack all religion, you might as well campaign for Cheney in ’08.
Layla,
OK, let’s tone down the rhetoric. I don’t agree with Roth and Bennett and Junga in the extent to which they’re harshing on you. It seems they’re wanting to pile on more than anything else. Regarding myself, I don’t take back anything I’ve said above, but recognize with a little self-analysis that I’m a little touchy when it comes to religious people speaking for me and telling me what I believe, and am liable to get pissy when it happens — so that’s probably why I went from 0 to 60 in 1 comment. From your posts, I know you are a well-meaning person. I’d just rather you didn’t try to export your religious worldview to me.
When you write “I don’t agree with the intolerance and anger you seem to be showing for religion in general,” I think you’re so far off-target that you’ve turned things upside-down. I don’t have anger for religion. I have anger toward religious people trying to shove their standards down other people’s throats. I am happy to tolerate other people’s freedom to subscribe to whatever religion they wish. I stand foursquare against the current rise in intolerance on the part of various fundamentalists of various religions, which they are brandishing as a weapon in an attempt to impose their worldviews on the rest of us.
In short, you’re absolutely free to pretend that you know the nature of God, the universe, and divine moral laws. Just don’t make me pretend along with you.
Layla, I rather like you. I know you are a good person. That’s exactly why I’am trying to speak seriously to you. So, yes, I’m trying to convince you of something which I believe can be shown to be true. And yes, that’s proselytizing, if you want to call it that way, but I cannot see anything wrong with it. Just as it is perfectly right for you to argue for, and try to convince me of, whatever appears reasonable to you. That’s how reason works among people. There is no lack of respect in it. On the contrary, that’s how we can help each other in our common quest for truth. It’s called free discussion, and it’s the engine of intelligence and civilisation. Of course, if you show me that, objectively, I’m making a mistake, that may hurt my pride. But I feel that I would be very foolish if I blamed you for that. I should rather be grateful to you, because actually you are rendering me a service, helping me to weed out a mistake.
As to what you say: “I did not choose a religion at random, it is my heritage from birth in the same way that Moslems inherit Islam”, you certainly do not mean that your “heritage” was the effect of your rational choice. You just happened, completely by chance, to be born within a certain tradition, and you found it natural to accept it as it was, without questioning it. You have taken the toss of the coin. That, in my view, is precisely what is meant by a random choice. If you disagree with this, you might well be right, but I would be very curious to know exactly why.
So, you want to “tone down the rhetoric” because people are being too “harsh” about spoofing a goofy, self-righteous religious metaphor. But you keep grandstanding on the cartoons of Mohammed, even though a depiction of Mohammed for many Muslims is the “harsh”est conceivable symbol.
Did you “bash” any religion? No. You satirized it. Did you “chop of” anybody’s head, or “burn their embassy”? No. Layla came here with rhetorical pistols blazing, telling you what you believe, and comparing you to terrorists. You told her she was wrong, and she responded by depicting you as hating all religion and (gasp) being “harsh.”
So what do you do? You back down. Well, now we know what to do if liberals ever do start to gain power in this country: tell them they’re being “pissy”–the one-sided rhetorical limit for women and feminized liberals, as opposed to the good ol’ fashioned masculine “anger” that shows you’re a meat eatin’, gun totin’ man–and they’ll back right down.
Embrace pissiness! To be pissy is to assert oneself without threatening violence. It’s taking a stand without adopting macho posturing and all the implicit violence that carries with it. You could say something like “we’re sissies, we’re pissy, get used to it! You ain’t all that and a bag of chips!” But hey, it’s your call. If you want to knuckle under to internal or external limits on how strident you’re allowed to be given your pre-NOW, pre-Stonewall role of woman or effeminate man, go ahead.
But don’t go all Davy Crockett blaspheming Muslim symbols and daring them to kill you at the same time you get all contrite about being pissy to Christians. What’s that about, girlfriend?
Hold the phone, Bennett.
Did I retract a single thing I’ve said? No.
Did I apologize in any way? No.
Did I “back down” if “back down” means changing the content of what I’m saying? No.
Did I continue to criticize Layla’s statements? Oh, yes indeedy.
Remember that I said “let’s tone down the rhetoric.” “Let’s” is short for “Let us.” Written to Layla, that means not just “me” but “me and you.” Us. In other words, Layla’s rhetoric is as much at issue as is mine.
If it’s “backing down” to clarify that the issue is not personal, well then whoopdy-doo, I “back down.” Who cares about that, except for people who want a middle-school soap opera?
If it’s “backing down” to retract what I believe, than clearly I’m not doing that.
To the extent that I re-examined my rhetoric, it was to the extent that I made my statements about Layla and not about the ideas she expressed. I don’t know Layla from any other forum besides the one here. I wouldn’t recognize her on the street. So I am taking pains to reorient myself and make it clear to those who might be fuzzy that the issue is not Layla as a person, but rather the things she says here, which are, I believe, demonstrably full of beans.
OK, girlfriend.
What’s wrong with switching the metaphor of a wheel with that of a cheese danish, to illustrate that conclusions drawn from a metaphor are only as sound as the metaphor itself? It wasn’t about me personally, it was about a silly idea. It’s pretty much the same kind of irony you’re using with your “images of Mohammed on Images of Mohammed,” except that I’m not violating anybody’s religious precept by depicting the universe as a giant cheese danish.
And please don’t tell me you didn’t mean to be a lot more than “pissy” by posting pictures of Mohammed! So how come you feel obliged to stop short of pissy with the Christians, while you go all Yosemite Sam on the Muslims?
Why not just be pissy? Be a man, girl!
OK, Bennett. I get it. You want to be sassy and have a fight. “Oooga, Booga. Nasty pants.”
Go ahead. You clearly haven’t closely read what I’ve written here recently if you’re going to say that I go easy on Christianity or go extraordinarily hard on Islam.
Now go ahead, insult me again, I’ll ignore you, and we’ll call it done.
Bennett,
First Christopher’s Cheney limerick and now you. I can’t stop laughing. I’m either going to have to find a computer chair that doesn’t tip over so easy or get health insurance.
Jim,
She?
I don’t think you are either pissy or touchy. It’s all a part of public dialogue. I appreciate your effort to let me know you are willing to listen. Blogs are written quickly and without an editor, and I write much better with an editor. When I hear anger like yours I know I have not expressed myself adequately and need to keep trying to communicate.
I’m not trying to get you to change your religion as much as to understand what you do think and where your values come from. According to my religious conventions, ‘prescient grace’ is God’s active presence in human life, a divine gift initiated by God that is always there but can be refused, that enables us to recognize good and evil and choose good. You seem to be tapped into the mothership of this prescient grace without being aware of any spirituality of your own. Translate this into whatever spiritual symbols you use, and you can see the disconnect and confusion this causes me.
Mario,
The metaphor I use with Moslems in describing Allah is the blind guys discovering the elephant. One finds the tusk and says the elephant is like a spear, one finds the tail and says the elephant is like a rope, and so on. So it is a polite way of saying all these religious traditions could be true in some way and as humans we are not equipped to understand the vastness of spirituality at all. That’s why we need prophets and Messiahs and Egyptian fiddle players to get closer to God.
I am not a theologian at all and have to depend on others to even begin to unravel the spiritual. I have experienced the solemn death imagery of Samhain ritual and the physicality of Islam’s prayer and Ramadan traditions. Every religion that touches me brings me some spiritual blessing.
How do you tell the true from the false? ‘By their fruits you will know them’. An olive tree does not bear figs. See how I access spirituality most easily through the words of Jesus of the New Testament?
You don’t say what religion you are trying to convert me to. Apparently some kind of “intelligence.†Intelligence is not incompatible with religion. If you look again you will see that United Methodist theology relies on 1)scripture 2)REASON 3)tradition 4)corporate and personal experience with god. Already I have found 4 parts of the elephant and you have only found one. Jim has found the elephant’s voice, but he says there is no elephant.
Actually, though I was being pissy, I was also genuinely interested in your reasons for considering the cheese danish out of bounds on the one hand, while you yourself draw cartoons of Mohammed on the other hand. In all seriousness, what’s your basis for the distinction?
Bennett,
Jim eats the Danish, wrapper and all, without noticing the wrapper, I sniff the wrapper, but I’m trying to read it upside down, Mario wants a cheesburger, and you talk so much you will starve to death, so the rest of us will all have the last laugh. Now about the mechanical pencil…
Layla,
I don’t agree with the notion that atheists have no basis for morals or values. I don’t believe established religions are the only basis for such things.
Oh, all right. I was overly harsh on your cheese danish. Look, I was dropped on my head by a danish when I was a kid, OK? It’s not easy to talk about. I need a hankie.
((((((((Oh of dirty people)))))))))))
I legend you of devil who mocks our Cheese Danish!
Why your Mrs. to Cheese Danish is with dogs eating??????????
You to draw pictures of Cheese Danish this is of democracy????????
(((((Is this not of animals)))))))
Oh shit loud!
So, Mick, what is the secular basis for morals and values? Patriotism?
I have already said that Jim eats the Danish without reading the label, but maybe that metaphor isn’t working too well.
Jim seems to be presenting himself as exhibit A for godlessness, and at the same time setting himself up to judge the morality of various public policies, not to mention defending freedom of speech. But when I asked him about it he said I was arrogant and telling him what to believe and had secret special super power…in other words he doesn’t know. Where is the secular language for these concepts?
In the Middle East, when we talked about why we didn’t leave, the only language we could find to describe it was the concept of religious calling, although our role was entirely secular. I can tell you Jim has prevenant grace (choosing the good), and sanctifying grace (ongoing transformation and learning) and when reminded can even access justifying grace (reconcilation and restoration of relationship), but what is that in plain English?
I’m not going to ask him again since he’s already looking for a hankie. And I’m definately not going to tell him the Tibetan prayer flags go in trees, not under cows. Otherwise how could wind carry the prayer into the spirit realm?
There is no definite scale of right and wrong. It varies hugely between cultures and circumstance. That’s why it’s not worth blaming people for the mistakes of their ancestors.
Tradition, also, seems a stupid thing to base anything on. Seems to go on the basis that if you did it wrong in the first place, you’ll continue doing it wrong in memory of it.
Why choose Christianity just because you’re born into it? Why not research other religions first before labelling yourself part of one and weaving it into your daily life?
Layla,
I am not trying to present myself as the alpha and omega of godlessness. There is no alpha and omega of who godless people can be. You were speaking about what atheists are and are not, as if you knew, and I felt I had to respond by telling you who one actual atheist, myself, is.
Your equation doesn’t work. Godlessness does not equal amorality, just as godfulness does not equal morality.
You referred to atheism as the ultimate arrogance (center of the hub of the universe, right?) and I simply replied that claiming to know about the ultimate order of the universe, especially without evidence, was the height of arrogance.
That is not the same as telling you you are arrogant for questioning me. Reread what I wrote, please.
You seem interested in interpreting what I say in the most unfavorable light possible (often beyond credulity) in this thread. Why?
Hare Trinity,
Ramadan, Eid, Samhain, what have I missed? Greek orthodox: the iconography so different from my own tradition with no graven images, but in Arabic language. Likewise Roman Catholic in Arabic language (but with Yaser Arafat in the front pew). Oh, yes, I’ve witnessed the blood sacrifices to Kali, a Ganesh service, with those incredible musical instruments that look like saxophones and sound like dinosaurs in heat, and I’ve sacrificed to an incarnation of Sarasweti known to help students (is this why my undergraduate grades were better than my graduate grades?). Anyhow the Mahabharata is too warlike and offends my egalitarian sensibilities. Likewise castes.
And then there are the monsters and demons on the same footing as the nice dieties. Brahma creates all indiscriminatly, Vishnu preserves the good, Shiva destroys demons, with a crescent moon on his head that makes him look fighteningly like a medieval christian devil.
Reincarnation? Some of my friends are into it, but I can’t visualize it for any length of time. All of that is too Eastern anyhow.
To me, religious symbols are so intertwined with culture. If you practice divination with I-Ching how do you understand the symbolism on a subconscious level? Try runes, the symbolism has western thinking behind it. Of course no one knows how the runes were actually used, but the whole point of divination is to reduce a complicated situatation (like your life) into symbols, manipulate the symbols, then retranslate them to gain some new level of insight that you would not be able to gain from just thinking about your life alone. It helps to have someone with good religious intuition. Like my Egyptian Moslem violinist who was so good at reading coffee grounds.
Some Methodist traditions I rather like: strong stands on issues such as slavery, humane treatment of prisoners, estblishing institutions of higher learning, founding Goodwill industries, actively involved in efforts for world peace, ecumenical participation with other religious groups. Aso singing ‘amazing grace’ in 4-part harmony is to me more interesting then spinning a prayer wheel. They may or may not be stupid traditons, depending on your values.
Maybe that’s the answer to the burning question I will not discuss with Jim anymore because it makes him too unhappy: maybe a religion chooses you because of your values.
Jim,
I agree atheist can be moral.
The hub metaphor is from a comparative religion telecourse. I don’t remember the name of the theologian that said it, it was in some 12-tape series; I thought it was profound but if it makes you unhappy, think about something else.
No one is insulting you.
Layla, I’m really very interested in your remarkable elephant. The four “parts” of it you claim you have found strike me as something like this: (a) its location on earth, which is 2000 miles north of the North Pole;(b) its shape, which is a TRIANGULAR BALL (yes, I had already noticed that!); (c) its mass, which is zero; and (d) its effects on your spirit, which is profound happiness. While I have no reason to question property (d), I cannot help feeling that properties (a)-(c) make for a somewhat peculiar animal. Are you sure it’s not an unicorn, after all?
Mario, I see what you’re saying about intelligence, that demonstrates it perfectly.
Layla,
Patriotism, as we all well know, is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I wouldn’t even have consdiered patriotism as a basis for morals and values.
I agree with Hare Trinity (in #35). If a person knows what’s right (not hurting others, etc.) and what’s not (hurting others, etc.), and lives by those standards, why does that person have to claim some established basis or another for that understanding? Sure, it comes from somewhere, but rather than being arrogant and claiming knowledge they don’t have, some people feel more comfortable saying they just don’t know and possibly don’t really care, as long as no one gets hurt.
A lot of the world’s problems come in where people claim to have that knowledge, which they really don’t have, because it’s just a guess or faith in the first place, and then they pressure (or worse) a lot of other people into accepting the ‘knowledge’ they’ve claimed.
Mick,
And religion is fast becoming the first refuge of the scoundrel.
One of the museums downtown had some problem with showing an educational program the creationaists objected to. Our church offered space for the program without charge. It is absolutely inexcusable to interfere in science and education like this, then try to claim religion requires this. It is important for those of us who are from more mainstream denominations to show there is a different religious viewpoint.
It seems like the doctrine of not hurting others is suspiciously like the New Testament. You could also make a case for some actions that help some people while hurting others. I have not been actively religious for a good part of my life , so I am quite comfortable with those who are not. Perhaps they are not comfortable with me though, because, in this forum at least, they certainly seem to want to pressure me into accepting whatever ‘truth’ they’ve found.
I think if you could package a secular morality into a 60-second sound bite, the DNC would be dancing in the street. From the discussion here, I don’t think it’s going to happen. The Dems aren’t going to be able to elect a candidate without acknowleging religion. So much for ‘taking back the moral high ground.’
Perhaps living in a culture where nearly everyone was Moslem had something to with my shift to a ‘straight path’ with a more active religious profile. (You are either from the True Religion, or messaheeya or yahood; there are no other choices that anyone can comprehend), Or maybe as I get older, there is less time left and I want to connect more solidly with all aspects of being alive rather than being a religious bystander. I also feel that as more thinking people such as yourself hesitate to be involved in organized relgion, this gives more influence to the more extreme religious voices.
Layla,
Yes, maybe, but it will be more influence over less people.
The argument could be made that if that were to happen in Iraq, there would be less sectarian violence there.
I think the U.S. is still deeply religious, in spite of the growth of ‘mega-churches’ that cater to ‘seekers’ rather than ‘believers.’ Non-religious have not been able to define their morality and will not play in Peoria until that happens. (I do trust you guys, really, but I know peoria and they won’t). One constant theme in the Middle East: there is now one superpower with no more strong soviet union to balance U.S. power. Also, ‘the answer to militant Islam is moderate Islam’. Apply this to domestic politics and you see there is no power group to oppose Falwell, et al. But less sectarian violence if people become atheists? Let me think about that one….
Mick Part 2,
If you make them atheists will they stop fighting? no, no.. the question was about SECTARIAN violence, wasn’t it, which is religious by nature. Or is it? Was the Protestant reformation about religion or about land ownership? Reasons for violence may not be the stated reasons and may be very complex.
My Iraqi students were Suni, Shia and Kurd. They didn’t really seem to be aware of the religious distinctions until I read them a newpaper article about Saddam, then they knew what they were but they had to think about it- but the Kurds hated the Arabs without thinking twice, for sure. So in my very limited experience, culture trumped religion. (Or was the hate from witnessing chemical weapons?)
Okay that was about sectarian, now about violence. Rabble rousing has two parts: the rabble and the rousers. The young shebab listen to music where every song is about ‘habibi’… they are lovesick. They want a job so they can get married. And the rousers: it only takes “one influential person to whip up a crowd into madness” (from Sunday’s sermon on Ruwanda), so now we’re back to leadership.
So that doesn’t really answer the question–and I think it’s a critical question–but at least I broke it into smaller pieces.
Layla,
At least without religion, people might know what it really is they’re fighting for, and they just may stop. Religion is too often how the rouser gets the rable to kill each other. That’s in the absence of any other reason that would rouse the rabble. Religion is sometimes the only effective motivation the rouser can conjure. It works. But not without religion.
WWI was ‘started’ by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Iraq was ‘started’ by WMD. The Janissaries fought because they were kidnapped as children and didn’t know any other life. Existing geographical borders couldn’t support a rapidly expanding population.
There are good reasons and there are real reasons. Without religion would people really lose their creativity?
That same argument says a people without religion will always be overwhelmed by a people that believes god is on their side.
Then look at our own American civil rights movement, born in churches (our only institutions controlled by blacks), and with a non-violent rhetoric…