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