From the Christian Side of the Religious Divide

"How many people have been killed on the behalf of Communism?"

Um, you know, Communism isn't a religion -- it's a political philosophy (or, perhaps more accurately, a number similar political philosophies). In the USSR, the Communist political leaders saw the Russian Orthodox church as a threat, so moved against it.

Similarly, in Tudor England, Henry VIII saw the Catholic Church as a threat to his power, so outlawed it.

Also, another one of Juanell's silly "zingers":

"evolution, a rather necessary dogma of those who deny the existence of God,"

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. How does evolution (or non-evolution) have anything to do with belief in God?

Another writer addresses this far more eloquently than I can, so here:

One of the main reasons that evolution can coexist with God without an infringement on either's turf is because evolution does not attempt to explain how life itself first came to be, nor does it attempt to explain away consciousness and self-awareness. Evolution does not try to explain away the human soul or spirit or to offer a theory on life from lifelessness. This is still the terrain of religion and philosophy, and just as religion has no place in a science class, science is best set apart from forages into metaphysics. Neurologists can map every neuron and synapse and still not account for the human mind or for consciousness. Biologists can show how the simplest cell can evolve into the most complex human but still not be able to explain convincingly how carbon compounds become alive. The process by which objects become animate can be described by science without being fully explained by it. In fact, the implications of life itself can reach well beyond science, without coming into conflict with it.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051017/msiegel

Juanell ain't the sharpest tack in the barrel, but, God bless her, you know she tries.

I thought of a couple more points in response to the "Why do so many scientists endorse Evolution?" page. A quote from that page:

"As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans."

First, although I'm an atheist, I have no interest in upholding atheism against evidence to the contrary. In fact, the discovery of God would be the most awesome, amazing scientific discovery in human history. I'm certain that scientists who are atheists feel the same way. It is true that many of the top scientists are atheists, but they would not suppress evidence against evolution just to uphold atheism. Scientists are first and foremost seekers of truth. If the words "God was here" or some similarly unambiguous message was coded into our genomes, any scientist who discovered it would let that discovery be known rather than suppress it. The scientific would would investigate the claims, and if found to be true, the existence of God-- or at least intelligent design-- would become part of the scientific canon. If you believe otherwise, I'm afraid you're simply guilty of bigotry against scientists. I've known many scientists. They are awesome people. They are not liars.

Another point: 40 percent of scientists say they believe in god. That's millions of scientists. That's an awful lot of people supposedly covering up for something that supposedly undermines their faith.

Well, there you go. Christian Answers. Their prejudice isn't too obvious, is it?

That page is the same thing that global warming denialist groups do: trot out a list of "experts" who support their cause. Some of whom are even actual experts! But they're a tiny minority whose arguments have been rejected by the climate science community as well as every respected scientific organization in the world. Having failed to convince those in the realm of science, these denialist groups-- funded by the energy industry and right-wing foundations-- push their cause in the realm of politics. Legislation and public opinion are the only lines of attack left for them. Which is fine, because they're motivated more by politics anyway.

Politics, not science, is also the motivation of Christian evolution denialists, except they've been at it much longer. They've lost in the scientific arena, because their arguments are unscientific and just dead wrong. So these evolution denialist groups spread their arguments in the realm of legislation and public opinion instead. Many politicians and average folks unfortunately lack a basic understanding of what science is and how it works, so they swallow the misinformation. It's very sad to see.

As soon as I saw the page you directed me to, I laughed out loud. "Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE," they say with a raised voice. DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE! As if that automatically makes them authorities on evolution! Clicking on a handful of the names confirmed my suspicions. At least half weren't biologists of any kind, but physicists, engineers, chemists and the like. Not especially authoritative, I'd say.

I laughed even harder when I scrolled down and saw that they couldn't find even 100 garden-variety DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE for their creationist rogues gallery. It's not like they haven't had enough time-- their about page says they've been in continuous ministry for over 40 years. So, in over 40 years they've found all of 94 creationists with DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE. That's probably one actual *biologist* for every year of their ministry. Bravo! Way to undermine your own argument!

The joke keeps getting funnier with their list of "Leading Evolutionists" (notice they've lowered their voice now). There are only 16 names. Outnumbered six to one by the creationists! Wow! They want to leave the impression that there are way more creationists than evolutionists. A more accurate comparison would be a list of biologists who support creationism, which would be maybe half their current list, and a list of biologists who support evolution, which would contain millions of names.

I then clicked on the other link you mentioned. What a load of conspiracy nonsense. Get out your tin-foil hats, people! Let's get this straight: we're to believe that millions of knowledgeable scientists are maintaining a conspiracy of silence to cover up a lack of evidence for evolution.

From an intellectual standpoint, arguing that millions of scientists are lying about evolution is no different than arguing that millions of Jews lied about the Holocaust. This is just sheer, unadulterated bigotry. Deep down, the anti-evolutionists, those who believe there is an "evolution conspiracy," hate scientists and science as much as anti-Semites hate Jews and Judaism. Demonizing an entire class of people makes it possible to dismiss their claims outright, and believe the most ludicrous of conspiracies.

The history of science has shown time and time again that it is self-correcting. Vested scientific interests have gone by the wayside as old theories have been replaced by new. But this self-correction was not achieved through campaigns to affect legislation or public opinion. It occurred in the scientific realm, through scientific means. Evolution opponents can propagandize forever, but evolutionary science will progress without them.

John, you say evolution is no longer in dispute among scientists as though there are no "real" scientists who don't accept it. Maybe you can check this out: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

Also, please look at the answer to the question about why so many scientists support it.

I'll check in another time for your next post, Ben.

Juanell Garrett--Midwest Voices '08

Juanell,

Evolution is a scientific fact. Dozens of scientific fields have contributed hundreds of years worth of evidence establishing that fact. The existence of evolution is no longer in dispute among scientists. Only religion-motivated groups dispute it.

John Franson

Ross:

The founding fathers were absolutely suspicious of mixing church and state. That is why you won't find any mention of a "creator" in the Constitution-- they purposely left it out. As for the Declaration, it was a political document intended to encourage colonists to join the rebellion, so adding an appeal to religion made sense from a propaganda standpoint. Still, only one mention in the whole document is pretty slim gruel to support your argument-- and in any case, the Declaration is not part of the American legal canon. It's the creator-less Constitution that forms our basis for law.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, but "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" are the first words of the First Amendment to the Constitution, so the founders must have thought it was pretty important. This is the Establishment Clause, which establishes freedom FROM religion. The next clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is the Free Exercise Clause, which establishes freedom OF religion. Freedom from religion is so important that the founders put it before freedom of religion!

Separation of church and state isn't something invented by atheists. In fact, the first people to support it were the Baptists. In the 18th century, Baptists in America were persecuted religious minorities, and they had to pay taxes in support of churches they opposed (Anglican and Congregationalist). The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson (then President) about this, and Jefferson's reply contains the most famous iteration of the "separation" phrase: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

It is well known that Jefferson wasn't a Christian, but a deist-- one who believes that a deity exists, but does not intervene in human matters. In other words, that god created the universe and then left it alone. Deists don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, either. Other deist Founding Fathers were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Ethan Allen. George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, and James Monroe, while nominally Christian, also had deist tendencies, spoke little of religion, and didn't take communion during church services. As for Adams, he was a Unitarian, and didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus.

These Founding Fathers were strong supporters of church-state separation. The courts have recognized this when interpreting the Establishment Clause. Government must not support or give preference to any religion or religions, or to religion over non-religion. It's not just the law. It's what's right and just.

Also, the deists were strongly critical of Christianity and organized religion. Many people accused Jefferson of being an atheist, and they may have been right. After all, he wrote this to his nephew: "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear."

All of this is historical fact. You can Google it yourself.

It's arguable to what extent "Judeo-Christian values" played a part in our nation's founding. But any values that the Judeo-Christian tradition contributed to the founding were not religious ones. Our country was not founded on religion. It was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. That's why our Constitution is the oldest of any existing nation, and why all of us are free to believe as we see fit, or to not believe at all.

I will answer to you tomorrow. Got something to finish here first, and I don't want to give you something sloppy. Alright?

Ben

Thanks, Ross, for keeping the dialogue going while I've been gone. I was surprised how much you knew about early American history. I don't know about you, but I didn't learn that in public school. I learned it later when I was teaching my own kids.

It's also interesting that the original Pennsylvania constitution required legislators to profess, "I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration." And the first Delaware constitution required legislators even to include a belief in Jesus Christ. This sort of "scary" information can be found at
www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm.

Ben, thanks for checking in from Germany. I wanted to address some things you said. You mentioned the "no atheists in foxholes" which Ms. Staten also used in her column. I don't believe that was ever meant to say that aheists aren't patriotic and don't serve their country. To me, it means that when people are in mortal danger they're probably hoping for a God to save them even if they didn't believe in one prior to that time.

You said it had to be doubted that all Communists who persecuted people for their religion were atheists. Likewise, I would say that not all people who use the name of God when trolling for money are Christians. When you look at the statistic that 85% of the U.S. claims Christian beliefs, I can see how it's easy for you to say that Christians must be responsible for the evil in the country. While lots of those people claim to be Christians, it's only because they aren't something else
(atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.). When I talk to other Christians, we agree we'd be happy if 85% of the members of our churches were Christian.

In your first post, you questioned whether atheism can be considered a belief. Yeah, I think it would be accurate to consider it that. You also question about whether atheists try to convert people, then take a rather lengthy paragraph trying to do that very thing. (Sorry, it didn't work. How can I explain to you the work of the Holy Spirit?) You talk about "wasting time praying for salvation that will never come." (I think it took maybe five minutes out of my life. It was time well spent.)

Last year my older sister died in a home accident. "How tragic!" people always said when they heard about it. I never felt one moment of sorrow for her--one second she's falling and the next she's with Jesus--although I still ache for her husband and children and grandchildren, and, yes, even for myself. Peace and hope, even in the time of death, is something that a belief in nothing can never provide.

Juanell Garrett--Midwest Voices '08

Please revisit your history books. The founding fathers were not suspicious of ANY mixing of church and state otherwise why the phrase, “endowed by their Creator”? You won’t find the phrase, “separation of church and state” in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. It just isn’t there. What they were guarding against was the establishment of any one state religion. They wanted no specific religion to be recognized as the official religion of The United States.

When King Henry the eighth was denied a divorce by the pope so that he could marry Anne, he promptly began his own church which became the Church of England and the official religion of England with the monarch as head of the church. The practice of any other religion was strongly discouraged. THIS is what the founding fathers feared, not religion itself. I would like you to show me where Jefferson, Franklin and Washington expressed criticism. If you read the history of the revolutionary war you will see that Washington is found praying the night before battles. From its very beginning congress has opened with a prayer. Let’s be honest here!

I know this probably rubs you the wrong way but there really can be no denying that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Please read the constitution and the declaration of independence. Also, read the federalist papers. References to God are easy to find.

I am not a missionary. My goal isn’t to convert you or anyone else but you cannot rewrite history to serve your purpose.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

First off: Atheists are the most distrusted minority in the USA by far. There are many misconceptions about us regarding our lack of compassion (untrue), our stands on social and military issues (the proverb "There are no atheists in foxholes." has been disproven long time ago), and especially moral questions. This does not even count some of the pillars of the Christian Right who like to spout how Atheists and Secularists are bringing down the USA.
Secondly, Ms. Staten did not even try to portrait atheists as pristine people who can't do anything wrong. She tried to put some of the facts about us into perspective in regards to accepted religions.
You did more than just "refute that theme by naming some famous atheists who were not such good people", but instead claimed that "no article about the beauty of atheism would be complete without at least a mention of some of history’s more famous atheists". Like, well Stalin and Fidel Castro. You even managed to implicate Hitler with atheism, something I really hoped you have looked up in the meantime.
To clarify this: Yes, atheists can do bad things. They can murder, steal, lie and cheat. On the other hand, no amount of piety seems to keep Christians doing the same things. The difference here is that sometimes, Christians will use their religion as a justification; think "crusades" and "witch burning" here, or better yet, "manipulating people into giving you their money", as some prosperity preachers do. No atheist would do that; we cannot claim a higher being on our side. We just can try to reason, and that seldomly is a good tool in the bullshit business.

Wait a minute: The USA were founded on Judeo-Christian values? And one of those values was freedom of religion? Then I'm somewhat astounded they fled from the Old World with countries who were also embossed with Christian values. Oh no, they sailed away because they were persecuted for their beliefs there? But those were also Christians, so what was the problem?
Please, Ross, try to think here: The "freedom of religion" part was included under the impression of religious persecution in Europe, a experience which made the Founding Fathers quite suspicious against any kind of mixing between religion and state. Many of the Fathers, including Jefferson, Franklin and Washington himself were critical of the Christian religion and fanatism of any kind. While some of them were Christian this does not mean they wrote the Constitution in the spirit of Christianity. On the contrary, they were not Christian enough to not acknowledge the religions of others and that they have to create safeguards so no religion gets too strong.
But while you laud this achievement, why don't you acknowledge that freedom of religion also has to include freedom of religion to be worth anything? If you can only invoke this right if you belong to ANY religion it would be a meaningless freedom.

And again here: Yes, communists DID persecute people for their religion. I said so myself. But those who did it - even it they were all atheists, which has to be doubted - didn't do it for the sake of atheism but to increase their control of the people. In dictatorial countries religion can become a tool to provide some personal room, which is why many totalitarian governments are fighting organised religion. But you cannot link this to atheism, not even by refering to communists - simply, because those terms are not synonymous.
Surely you wouldn't call Saddam - just one recent example of a bloodthirsty dictator - as atheist, right? But he still peresecuted other muslims in order to keep opposition against his regime low, all the while being a muslim himself who was himself supported by a minor religious group, the Sunni.

Are atheists better than Christians? I don't think so, and I'm an atheist myself. But you won't see us starting wars and commiting atrocities while invoking some higher being or refering to some old book. Also, I like to think we have to look through the mist of religion to see the world how it is.

To you this might only be a small difference. To me, it is big enough.

Ben, Germany

You both miss the point. Nobody ever said that all atheists are bad people. What I did say was that the original article gave the impression that all atheists were such nice people, better in fact than religious people. My point was to refute that theme by naming some famous atheists who were not such good people.

It is you that is wrong. The communists DID persecute people for religious beliefs in fact killing or imprisoning them. Think Siberia. The fact is that a communist regime cannot allow there to be a power higher than the regime itself. If the government is the highest power then reasonably, all rights and privileges are granted by the government and therefore can be taken away by the government. That allows them to justify everything they do from the taking of private property to jail and death without question.

Fortunately, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Like it or not it was! The founders believed that all people were endowed with certain unalienable rights not by the government but by THE CREATOR and therefore there was a higher power to be answered to. These rights, since they are given by The Creator can only be taken away by The Creator. We have the 1st amendment guaranteeing our right to practice the religion of our choice. How wise they were over 230 years ago to know that in the future there would be those in the world who would like to take that right from us.

Pardon me but I do think that both Stalin & Mao waged war as did Castro. Mao basically enslaved 600,000,000 people wiping out thousands and thousands along the way and outlawing religion was a prime directive.

The same goes for Stalin. He killed millions and seized power over most of Eastern Europe. Again, religion is outlawed.

The Castro government has done the same on a much smaller scale.

Finally, where would the charitable institutions be without the donations of people of faith? I’ve heard of Catholic Charities and many other religious charities but I cannot recall ever hearing of an atheist charity, certainly not one with any impact. Can you name one? Many of Kansas City’s churches have food pantries for those in need. How many atheist food pantries are there?

I don’t mean to sound overly critical of atheism but the idea that atheists are somehow better people than those of faith just doesn’t hold water.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

1. Outlawing the practice of religion and/or persecuting the religious is nearly always an attempt of the state to concentrate power in the government.

2. Your argument is illogical. The niceness of a person has nothing to do with the validity of their beliefs. I can point out lots of evil acts perpetrated by religious people, but this doesn't necessarily make their religion evil. And if making a list atheists and theists and deciding who has a higher percentage of good people was a valid way to determine the value of atheism, there are plenty of prominent atheists that are nice people too.

I find it somewhat deplorable how you associate communism directly with atheism. I know this is a common misconception, but it just doesn't add up. Stalin, Mao, those communist leaders, didn't persecute religious people for the beliefs but for the loyalty those people had for their religion; it was an influence that diminished the communist grasp on people's minds, not some strange atheist act in the likes of 'kill those darn believers!'.
As for the war-waging, you might have something there. But no atheist will ever start a war to unconvert believers or fly a plane in a building for the sake of atheism. Sorry, but that belongs to religious people to do, and there is virtually no religion out there who can be exempt from creating fanatism and justifying violence for their goals.
Also, it's strange how people always name the worst examples of atheists and freethinkers to show that we can't be trusted. What with Garibaldi, who united Italy after decades of civil war and mass murder? What with Lincoln (yes, that guy) who was the only US-president who was not a member of any church and who as a president waged war to free three and a half million people? How come no one mentions them?

As for the "converting to atheism": C'me on here, okay? So far I was never approached on the street by an atheist and was asked if I'd ever considered atheism as my new belief (if you can call it that). Religions? Think about this the next time Jehova's Witnesses knock at your door or you see some catholic preacher on a corner.

Two last things: You express Pascal's Wager at the end - not the best argument for being religious. First, what if Islam is the true religion? What if the Greek Gods are real and not your God? What if Odin exists or Buddha is the real thing, but not your God? How high is the probability that your belief is correct if there are virtually thousands of higher beings worshipped around the globe and in all times? Also, how do you know your God really rewards your belief? Perhaps he is just plain indifferent if you pray or not. In the end, you will end up guessing if you have the right God and worship Him the right way, and come on, how big are your chances to come into Heaven under those circumstances?
As for the "if I'm wrong in my belief in God what have I lost"-thing: Sorry, that is bullshit, because you will have lost. Mormons and Witnesses refuse blood transfusion, some of them even vaccinations which is dangerous for their health and the health of others. Other religions support racial and ethnical segregation; some denominations try to keep women at home and in dependance of their husbands because that "is the place God gave them". You end up wasting time praying for salvation that will never come instead of doing something to help yourself; nearly all religions oppose scientific research that could be used to cure illness and improve our lives forever.
Seems a little bit much to lose, if you ask me.

Oh, and Ross Balano: I'm German, so take it from me. Hitler was raised Catholic and part of a congregation his whole live. He regularly brought up God in his speeches (in the beginning in the likes of "God is with us", later more like "Not even God can stop us"), and after he gained power he started a campaing against atheism, which was strongly associated with communism at that time, with atheists ending up tortured to death and in concentration camps. As for the Christians: Look up the "Reichskonkordat", if you want to know how the Vatican arranged themselves with the Nazis, if you are curious. Basically the Pope at that time (forgot the name, sorry) didn't speak up against Hitler for certain privileges for Christians in Germany, which he even upheld during World War Two. The Protestants even supported the Nazis (look up "German Christians" and "Ludwig Müller"), because they hoped Hitler would make their religion a state religion as reward. So much for that.

Ben, Germany

Beauty, I don't believe I made an attack on your faith. I pointed out some errors in Ms. Staten's column. You will notice that the Bible verses I put in refuted the ideas of the prosperity gospel and weren't verses intended to convert.

I didn't say anything about teaching Christian beliefs in schools (although I'm old enought to remember Bible reading and prayer in my public school), but I do object to the theory of evolution being treated as fact.

When I wrote my column opposing abortion in relatively mild tones, I was raked over the coals and ridiculed here. I received a letter from a 70-something woman calling me evil and a scumbag. Perhaps you think Ms. Staten's entitled to write an article uncontested just because she's the member of a tiny minority, but I don't.

Would I want you to be a Christian? Of course, but God's a gentleman and doesn't force people, so why should I? You don't need me to reveal some "wonderful but semi-secret truth" to you. The Bible's pretty widely available in the United States.

Juanell Garrett--Midwest Voices '08

I feel obliged to point out one major difference between you and I beauty.

There are people who write on this blog who disagree with me passionately and are not shy about voicing their opinions. Never, ever, have I told them to zip their lips and let my post stand on its own. If someone doesn’t agree with your point of view they should just shut up, is that right? For all the talk from the left about the virtues of inclusion and diversity it just doesn’t apply when conservative voices enter the conversation.

Since when is a refutation of an erroneous statement a sign of disrespect?

I cannot speak for Juanell but as for me; of course you count in my world! Everyone, even those I disagree with philosophically counts. Even the unborn count! Whatever way you choose to (or not to) express your faith or lack thereof is absolutely of no concern to me. Likewise, converting you isn’t on my “to do” list for as far as I can see. And pardon me but I just don’t see the evidence of this “never ending assault” on atheists. I googled it and came up empty save one event in Canada.

The tone of the article on Saturday, especially the ending, left me feeling as though the author feels the country would be a better place if the religious right were replaced by atheists. I write to disagree with that point of view and no disrespect is intended toward anyone.

One thing I have learned since becoming one of the Midwest Voices is that if you write something for public consumption expressing your opinion, you had better be ready for others to write in disagreement. You and Ms Staten will have to live with that the same way Juanell and I do.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

Juanell, I really try to respect your faith, your freedom to express and practice your faith. When did you last consider mine?

Not being a Christian, maybe I don't count in your world except as a target for conversion to your beliefs. I consider that in itself to be rude. I think it represents your lack of respect for me and my beliefs, not some great love you want shower upon me. I think it indicates a devaluation of me as a human being, not some wonderful but semi-secret truth you wish to reveal to me.

But I also realize that you have your right to practice and express your faith, just as I do. (And we all mostly come to the table convinced of the correctness of OUR OWN beliefs.) I also realize that some 85% of the population of this country claims some form of Christian beliefs, so it's a never-ending assault upon me and my fellow non-Christians.

I hear the whines that schools don't teach (Christian) religious beliefs (even when disguised as science), that government won't let Christians add religious displays at public expense to public property (you have so few churches, businesses and homes to decorate that you need a creche at City Hall?), that newspapers and other media are anti-religious (in the Star, Billy Graham's column and Faith Matters blogs are uncontested?)

For people locked out of the public square, Christians sure seem to get heard a lot in this country.

The next time someone writes a column saying that maybe non-believers can be good people, neighbors and citizens, why you just zip your lips and let that article stand on its own? I know Ross would be disappointed, but I'm also sure he could deal with it.

Beauty is skin deep but DUMBTH is clear to the bone

Very well said, as usual, Juanell.

I would think that no article about the beauty of atheism would be complete without at least a mention of some of history’s more famous atheists. It seems that one might want to mentions such notables as Karl Marx, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro. And although they didn’t publicly espouse atheism, both Hitler and Mao mostly outlawed the practice of religion in their respective countries soon after taking power.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008