Contact
Subscribe


Christianity, Atheism, And Freakish Anger

Jul 31, 2011
By .
Politics & Current Events

There are many things that alienate me from the various groups to which I (nominally) belong. The starkest ones arise in the context of religion. I strive to be a Christian — usually falling fall short of what I understand to be Christianity's ideals. Yet I feel utterly alienated from vast segments of modern, American, public Christendom.

Take the issue of atheism. I can't find it in myself to be threatened or outraged at the existence of atheists — even aggressive, litigious, or obnoxious atheists, who grab headlines but strike me as a relatively small group. I can disagree, or even be annoyed by, some Establishment Clause lawsuits by atheists (just as I can be irritated by Christian legal positions in such matters), but I can't quite get to the point of incandescent rage.

So when a group of atheists filed suit over the presence of a cross at a 9/11 memorial, my reaction was not fury. I noted that my classmate David French was on the case and snarked mildly about the atheists' approach to the standing issue, but it didn't spike my blood pressure. Nor did it provoke rage from David, who is a religious-freedom advocate and as devout a Christian as you are likely to meet, but was also the law school classmate to whom we would appeal for the viewpoint of the hypothetical "reasonable person."

Alas, American Christendom — or what passes for Christendom — is not populated exclusively with people like David. It's an exercise for philosophers (or polemicists) whether it is even made up mostly of such people.

Rather, American Christendom is also made up of people like the visitors to Fox News' Facebook page who commented on the 9/11 cross lawsuit story.

It is made up of people like Hans Anderson, a student at MSU:

It is made up of people like Eileen Rourke:

It is made up of people like Sindy Clock:


It is made up of people like Raylene Ingmire, who no doubt spreads her views to her students at Clinton Middle School:

It is made up of people like Casey M. Jones:

It is made up of people like Michael Perri:

Surely there is a strong component of the GIF Theory here — people perceive using their Facebook accounts as semi-anonymous, even though (as the now-Google-famous people above are finding out) it isn't.

Even so, I find these people, and their ilk, much more threatening and infuriating than even the most vexatiously litigious atheists. I have friends and family members who are agnostic or atheist; many of them keep the spirit of Christ's words about love, compassion, and humility better than I do. Yet segments of our society are prepared to treat them in some contexts as second-class citizens. The self-described Christians above do not think that they will cast themselves outside of acceptable society by talking like that — and they are right. Rather, they are reacting to a sick culture that renders such commentary acceptable or even encouraged. Some [edited to add "some"] Conservative Christians complain that the culture reviles them, and perhaps some segments of it do. But everyone who tolerates this sort of invective — everyone who participates in a culture that signals that this rhetoric is acceptable — is hurting not just American culture but American Christianity.

It's a vicious cycle. To the extent we allow this sort of thing be the face of American Christianity, more people will choose another path — which will make such self-described Christians even more threatened and more prone to saying such things, and so on. Imagining American culture as a struggle between Christians and atheists may lead to short-term political gain for some Christians, but it spells stagnation and long-term spiritual decline.

Last 5 posts by Ken White

58 Comments
Tags ,

57 Comments

  1. Rick Horowitz  •  Jul 31, 2011 @11:18 am

    I particularly like the ones who say "Kill atheists. I hope atheists get raped!" and then add "atheists are full of hate."

    If the first set of statements demonstrates Christian love, then absolutely let me be filled with hate instead!

  2. Man Mountain Molehill  •  Jul 31, 2011 @11:25 am

    I'm an atheist, have been most of my life.
    On the other hand, Christianity is a major component of our culture.
    So, put the effing cross up, already.

    These atheists who engage in foot-stomping tirades against the visible apparatus of Christianity are missing the point. It's the intellectual argument against a personal god that counts. Complaining about something like "In god we trust" on the money is idiotic and counter productive.

  3. David  •  Jul 31, 2011 @11:34 am

    If those who better exemplify Christian ideals are (for that very reason) likely to ignore such an issue or to withhold comment, then the sample of public discourse will always be unrepresentative. So is surveying the public discourse a reasonable or fair way to size up the state of contemporary Christendom?

  4. R. Raymond  •  Jul 31, 2011 @12:29 pm

    I and my Christian wife were interviewed on a local, and highest rated, talk show many years ago. The host was a born-again Christian, who had a propensity for sexual innuendo and skewering any side he found hypocritical, and off-mike he used nearly the same words you used to describe atheists, but he added truthfulness. He was often disgusted by his fellow born-agains for not being wholly truthful in an argument.

    I find this constant attack on Christian icons, especially when their historical context is ignored, deplorable. Removing them does violence to our history and to our culture. It doesn't make me a second-class citizen, notwithstanding whomever may try, because religious icons and religious beliefs are present in our society. I find the Soledad Cross quite stirring, metaphorically as well what it represents to Christians, as a memorial to those who have died for our country. IIRC the site has markers for other faiths also, though I may be wrong; I haven't walked the site in a decade.

    There's a small group of atheists who are as antagonistic, hateful, and fundamentalist as any of these Christians. You'll find perfect examples at PZ Myers site. Don't include Dawkins in this group, I've heard him in interview and he's much more tolerant, while sticking to his beliefs, than Myer's cadre.

  5. strech  •  Jul 31, 2011 @1:22 pm

    I wonder how much of this openness with their real name is a result of Facebook's design. It generally presents itself as a social-circle tool, so Facebook comments may be a result of them feeling like they're talking amongst their friends, instead of to everybody.

    Also, I'm not an expert on standing, but sans taxpayer standing how can you challenge Establishment Clause violations? The "physical illness" bit deserves the mocking, but sounds like it's showing up because American Atheists isn't confident taxpayer standing exists anymore and doesn't know how else to get past standing doctrine on any establishment clause cases.

  6. ecurbCO  •  Jul 31, 2011 @1:54 pm

    Well, better get a ruler. Would hate to think that the lawyer handling this case wasn't "hung!!!!!!"
    Sorry, it was the only thing left to make fun of.

  7. KipEsqire  •  Jul 31, 2011 @2:16 pm

    The reciprocal of, "Without God, no morality is possible…" is of course, "With God, any morality is possible…"

  8. Landru  •  Jul 31, 2011 @2:26 pm

    I call Poe on Sindy Clock. That one's too awesome to be real.

  9. Tarkin  •  Jul 31, 2011 @2:33 pm

    Maybe the Fox News commenters are taking their inspiration from Muslims. I mean, for all of the amazing bravery shown by atheists and agnostics in taking on those terrible Christians, they seem to have a bit more discretion when it comes to issues regarding the Religion of Peace.

    On the other hand, maybe these commenters are following the example of tolerant Christians such as yourself Ken, like the time you said that a psychiatrist should be murdered for telling a father he should spank his child when the child did something the father didn't want him to do. "http://www.popehat.com/2011/06/07/my-proposed-therapy-for-dr-george-rekers-involves-not-glaxosmithkline-but-smith-wesson/#comments" Or the example of one of yout commenters, who thought the psychiatrist should merely be castrated for such a heinous crime.

    It's more likely that it's just people getting irritated and blowing off steam. Everyone has things that push their buttons. My own pet peeve is Christians that like to write sanctimonious screeds about how tolerant and Christ-like they are, as opposed to those stupid evil Conservative Christians.

  10. Paul Baxter  •  Jul 31, 2011 @2:50 pm

    Undoubtedly Christians are often their own worst enemies in cases like this. Perhaps some of these people, as seems to be the case with the bomber in Norway and some of the violent folks in N Ireland, take their "Christianity" as nothing more than a group affiliation, a way of distinguishing "us" from "them". In such cases I claim no affinity with them at all. A Christian is someone who follows Christ, not someone who simply refers to him or herself as a Christian.

  11. Dan Weber  •  Jul 31, 2011 @3:03 pm

    I want to believe that the person who said "I love Jesus and the cross, and if you don't I hope someone rapes you" was being satirical and fell victim to Poe's Law.

    I want to believe it. It's probably not true, though.

  12. Gretchen  •  Jul 31, 2011 @3:21 pm

    …and never mind the history and culture of non-Christian Americans, who have fought, died, and are buried underneath those crosses whether they like it or not. It's more important to coddle the feelings of Christians who see themselves as being attacked if their particular religious symbol isn't allowed to represent everyone. That is, I believe, what is generally meant by the term "privilege."

  13. Gretchen  •  Jul 31, 2011 @3:22 pm

    Grr, messed up my formatting. The above was meant as a reply to R. Raymond's claim about Christian icons on public land.

  14. R. Raymond  •  Jul 31, 2011 @4:58 pm

    Gretchen the formatting is OK but the tunnel-vision is not. Non-Christian American graves are, when known, given their own symbol at these memorials. They are corrected from time to time too.That the Soledad Cross stands out as a marker is cultural, not privilege. It is a marker of memorialized death, and paid for by Christians who at least put up a symbol to mark their deaths. Please look up the demographics of America just after WWII, you'll find a nation like Australia today, 90% white and Christian (meaning Christian or part of the Christian heritage, not the self-proclaimed, born-again, we-are-the-only-Christians). A lot of these memorials reflect that demographic. Jews were roughly 1% of the population with Muslims and Hindus non-existent. NA's were often Christian while still holding to their traditional beliefs. Look up Christmas origins, perhaps Easter too, as how Gentiles in Europe dealt with Christianity. No difference.

    As for liking it or not, I'm an atheist and my family will likely put me under that cross, a cultural statement not a religious one. Personally, I offered my wife a cruise so my ashes could be put to sea (12 miles out of course) along the Aleutians. :)

    However, I think, because so often there is, an underlying Rousseauian (Ok spelling may be an issue but damn it, Jim, I'm not French) belief in the "noble savage" is at play here. So without further adieu (why do the French use so many vowels to arrive at one sound?):

    I've just finished reading about 14882 deaths (although the article is not clear on what "skeletal fragments" means) through what archeologists are calling genocide at Sacred Ridge around AD 800 (which of course the stupid journalist gave as 800 AD, 800 CE would have been better). No European Christians there. Nasty NAs, you might even think their human.

    In 1487, the Aztecs sacrificed over 80,000 prisoners in 4 days (and recorded it out of pride for what they gave that particular god). The Inquisition (though the numbers are debated) killed anywhere from 3000 to 10000 over a century or two, and the Catholic Church finally said enough is enough (OK, they are slow to react). Have you no understanding of why Cortes and about 160 conquistadors could take down an empire of 16 million? It wasn't the "white" prophecy; almost every tribe they ran into hated the Aztecs with a passion for the sacrifices, as well wanting their wealth. And please don't get me on the subject of "germ warfare", there is simply no proof, other than that Europeans brought new diseases. A current study out of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México backs that as far as the Aztecs go.

    So, this atheist guy who is only removed from being NA by 1-2 generations, and Jewish by two (she had a male child who married a Gentile and converted), is simply not impressed by your argument. Oh, and my grandmother was French but I forgave her because she used fewer vowels and never screamed invectives from the ramparts. (This last paragraph and some preceding sentences were flippant; is there an emotican for that?)

  15. Jack Marshall  •  Jul 31, 2011 @6:52 pm

    I have to ask, Ken: is this really the face of Christianity, or just a select, cherry-picked, aberrant group that is made to look that way by taking them out of cyber-obscurity and making them "Google-famous?" In indulging your understandable desire to subject these hateful fools to the contempt they deserve, aren't you also greatly magnifying the harm and misconceptions created by their outrageous comments?

    I don't know what the happy medium is here, but I sure didn't think many, if any, Christians were that hateful. If t is a significant percentage, then Christianity deserves what it gets, It it's just a handful of wackos, you may be doing your religion a disservice.

  16. Ken  •  Jul 31, 2011 @7:04 pm

    If those who better exemplify Christian ideals are (for that very reason) likely to ignore such an issue or to withhold comment, then the sample of public discourse will always be unrepresentative. So is surveying the public discourse a reasonable or fair way to size up the state of contemporary Christendom?

    David:

    Unfortunately, I think it is not the Christians who live quiet lives of decency who frame Christendom in the minds of non-Christians. Non-Churchgoers (whether atheists/agnostics, members of other religions, or simply non-Churchgoing cultural Christians) don't get a lot of exposure to most Christian churches, which don't spend the entire service reviling other people. The regrettable thing is that the loudest and most strident voices proclaiming themselves Christians in our culture seem to be the worst examples of Christianity — and those seem to be the ones defining Christianity in the minds of non-Christians.

  17. Ken  •  Jul 31, 2011 @7:11 pm

    I mean, for all of the amazing bravery shown by atheists and agnostics in taking on those terrible Christians, they seem to have a bit more discretion when it comes to issues regarding the Religion of Peace.

    I see this argument a lot, but as far as I can tell there's little too it more than atheist = liberal and liberal= "pro-Muslim." I know plenty of atheists who are strongly against, for instance, Islamic extremism and Islamic threats to freedom of expression.

    On the other hand, maybe these commenters are following the example of tolerant Christians such as yourself Ken, like the time you said that a psychiatrist should be murdered for telling a father he should spank his child when the child did something the father didn’t want him to do. “http://www.popehat.com/2011/06/07/my-proposed-therapy-for-dr-george-rekers-involves-not-glaxosmithkline-but-smith-wesson/#comments” Or the example of one of yout commenters, who thought the psychiatrist should merely be castrated for such a heinous crime.

    I own my comments, Tarkin, and I did make a violent comment about Dr. Renken. I submit, however, that (1) your summary of his position is, like his worldview, gravely disordered, and (2) I made a violent comment about him in particular based on his particular behavior, not against all Christians/all psychologists/all conservatives.

    It’s more likely that it’s just people getting irritated and blowing off steam. Everyone has things that push their buttons. My own pet peeve is Christians that like to write sanctimonious screeds about how tolerant and Christ-like they are, as opposed to those stupid evil Conservative Christians.

    "Blowing off steam" tends to reveal things about people. I blow off steam, as you yourself pointed out. However, there's something different about "blowing off steam" by wishing death or rape or torture against an entire group based on the actions of a small subset of that group.

    Moreover, I think you misunderstand (possibly because of vague language by me) my point. Not all "conservative Christians" act this way; many or most (like David French) hew far better to the spirit of Christianity. Unfortunately, I submit that the subset of Christians who frame American life as a fight between good Christians and evil, hated non-Christians has a disproportionate impact on the culture and on how Christians are viewed.

  18. Ken  •  Jul 31, 2011 @7:12 pm

    I don’t know what the happy medium is here, but I sure didn’t think many, if any, Christians were that hateful. If t is a significant percentage, then Christianity deserves what it gets, It it’s just a handful of wackos, you may be doing your religion a disservice.

    Jack, it's certainly not all Christians, and perhaps not even "many" Christians, but I think the haters and demagogues color Christianity in American life — possibly because the us-versus-them rhetoric is so effective as a political weapon.

  19. John Farrier  •  Jul 31, 2011 @8:19 pm

    I think that David brings up a good point.

    While I was a Christian I attended a comparatively conservative seminary. Well, at least by United Methodist standards it was considered the farthest right.

    In general, the students and professors had no interest in fighting any cultural wars over abortion, pornography, homosexuality, etc. They were more interested in alleviating poverty and social conflict. So they simply wouldn't be present in communities debating such issues, let alone issuing vile invective or rejecting it with any sort of regularity. They, and a lot of Christians like them, wouldn't be a part of this sample.

  20. Charles  •  Jul 31, 2011 @8:26 pm

    I mean, for all of the amazing bravery shown by atheists and agnostics in taking on those terrible Christians, they seem to have a bit more discretion when it comes to issues regarding the Religion of Peace.

    When adherents of Islam have enough power in America to get any government unit to Establish (in the broad constitutional sense) Islam and atheists stand on the sidelines I'll concede that this argument has merit. Until that point I'll note that it is nonsense.

  21. R. Raymond  •  Jul 31, 2011 @8:42 pm

    Ken, unfortunately, I have to agree with you that the dogmatic "haters and demagogues" seem to color American views, especially in the media and politics, on Christianity. It's sad, because my personal experience of Christianity is mainly Pentacostal (they were nice to me), Episcopal (very nice to me), Anglican (very nice to me), Catholic (still accepting) and Mormon (hell, they even accepted me, except for my long hair). I dealt with Pastor, to Father, to Elder. Each church group knew I was an atheist (the Mormons baptized me with my agreement by force of Mother, hey I was a kid, but still told them my leanings). If your wondering about the first four churches, do you have any idea how few atheist women there are? It's like homosexuals in the general population…3% maybe 5%

    An aside, the most embarrassing moment in my life at a Church or elsewhere (Episcopal from a land grant by Barry Goldwater, his house was at the top of the hill) was hitting a SCOTUS justice in the breast with my elbow. My wife described my color as beyond red. We did not discuss her dissent on Kelo at any time then or after.

  22. R. Raymond  •  Jul 31, 2011 @9:08 pm

    Charles,
    I won't stand on the sidelines, period. I will, however, sweep with a broad brush.

    Christianity can be typified as a near pacifist religion in the New Testament (practitioners notwithstanding), and thanks to Paul anti-sexual, while the Quran tends to be a pragmatic warrior's religion (with a lot of proscriptions on innocents that is too often ignored). So, there's beauty on both sides just more so on one over the other. The Quran's pragmatic take on marriage (sexual obligations) is the best I've seen except for 13 th – 15th century Hinduism. However, the physical abuse if she forgets her obligation is wrong. It should be a religious obligation reminder only. Bad, bad Muslim wife, bad.

    Try to find a "Perfumed Garden" or "Kama Sutra" in Christianity. Or for that matter a "Pillow Book". The "Song of Songs", so very beautiful, is Old Testament and metaphor.
    No wonder European Christianity is below replacement, no good books. :>)

  23. David  •  Jul 31, 2011 @9:13 pm

    David:

    Unfortunately, I think it is not the Christians who live quiet lives of decency who frame Christendom in the minds of non-Christians.

    Why suppose it's their burden to do so? And if non-Christians feel that the best method for discerning the heart of contemporary Christendom is to look to some puerile, reactionary sniping in public forums, why suppose it's the burden or business of Christians to correct their superficiality?

    Non-Churchgoers (whether atheists/agnostics, members of other religions, or simply non-Churchgoing cultural Christians) don’t get a lot of exposure to most Christian churches, which don’t spend the entire service reviling other people.

    I'm aware. But again– why suppose it's the burden of Christians to correct this deficit of attention or skill on the part of those who take it upon themselves to assess Christendom?

    The regrettable thing is that the loudest and most strident voices proclaiming themselves Christians in our culture seem to be the worst examples of Christianity

    They're loudest in part because you, and others who find it important to be seen expressing outrage about them, magnify their nonsense. This is analogous to scouring the fringes for traces of racism and then saying "See?! See?! America still hasn't gotten over it!"

    and those seem to be the ones defining Christianity in the minds of non-Christians.

    Again– why should this be a concern of Christians? If someone looking for treasure spends a few seconds trawling the latrine and discovers waste instead, and then declares that all the supposed treasure is really waste, shouldn't the lesson be that that's a pretty absurd way to go about seeking treasure?

  24. Rick Horowitz  •  Jul 31, 2011 @9:34 pm

    I love that the more conservative Christians are being called "fringe" and "extremists" and we should therefore stop focusing on this, at the very time that fringe extremist Christians appear to be having so very much influence over what the government does and doesn't do.

    Frankly, there's exactly one thing I see about any "true" Christians that isn't happening which should be: you shouldn't give a crap how the world perceives Christianity. You should care how the world perceives you.

    "Ye are the light of the world. Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." —Matt.5:14, 16 The Bible says that there will always be false prophets. There will always be those who mislead. You can't fix that.

    Christianity, as originally preached by your Jesus, was intended to be a personal religion, not a social phenomenon.

    Anyone wanting the government to recognize your religion thereby automatically proves they are Pharisees, not Christians as Jesus allegedly intended.

    Sign me,
    Balaam's Ass

    P.S. Get back to work doing what you were told to do. Show by how you live your day-to-day life that you are that compassionate, caring, I-came-here-to-die-for-you kind of person the guy you claim to worship was. Then you don't have to worry about whether the rest of us will look: we won't be able to stop looking. "A city set on a hill cannot be hidden" because of the light, not because of the noise.

  25. R. Raymond  •  Jul 31, 2011 @9:41 pm

    David,

    While I agree you have the free will to not consider these things Ken writes as important, to even say that Christendom can ignore it all, but I'd remind you that your religion, above the other two Abrahamic religions, is based solely on convincing, solely on prosleytizing, and you avoid Ken's points at peril to your religion. You convince by knowing Christ, but also by knowing the other.

    My favorite aphorism for Christians: "Paul was a Christian. Christ was a Jew. Go with the Jew first."

  26. David  •  Jul 31, 2011 @9:43 pm

    Christianity, as originally preached by your Jesus, was intended to be a personal religion, not a social phenomenon.

    Anyone wanting the government to recognize your religion thereby automatically proves they are Pharisees, not Christians as Jesus allegedly intended. ~~Rick Horowitz

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

    Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." ~~ Jesus

  27. David  •  Jul 31, 2011 @9:54 pm

    I’d remind you that your religion, above the other two Abrahamic religions, is based solely on convincing, solely on prosleytizing, and you avoid Ken’s points at peril to your religion. ~~ R. Raymond

    There are many worthwhile ways to engage in relevant persuasion. Rebutting the conspicuously ridiculous fringe, and fretting over people so superficial that they base their assessment of Christendom on that fringe, are not among them.

    It is, however, pretty exciting to declare that "avoiding" [sic] a blog posting's point imperils the faith itself!

  28. Rick Horowitz  •  Jul 31, 2011 @10:02 pm

    David, no matter how hard I try, I can't see how to read your response to my comment suggesting that you personally live what Jesus taught is anything but a non sequitur.

    Nothing about the comment allegedly made by a person named Jesus regarding the fulfillment of the Mosaic law says anything about the need for the United States government to support Christianity.

    The Bible attributes numerous behaviors and words to Jesus. I have almost never witnessed anyone today who claims to be a Christian engaging in such behaviors, or even appearing to understand the words written in the so-called New Testament.

    You want to convince me? Live it. I've read the Christians favored books numerous times. I've translated five of them from Koine Greek to English. The words are unconvincing because the lives of the people who claim to worship the alleged speaker of them are so unconvincing.

  29. David  •  Jul 31, 2011 @10:39 pm

    The Bible attributes numerous behaviors and words to Jesus. I have almost never witnessed anyone today who claims to be a Christian engaging in such behaviors, or even appearing to understand the words written in the so-called New Testament. ~~Rick Horowitz

    Perhaps Nick Kristof can give you some pointers

    You want to convince me? Live it. ~~Rick Horowitz

    Indeed. But the fact that there is a necessary personal aspect to true Christianity does not imply that true Christianity is exclusively personal (i.e., that the personal is sufficient to comprise it).

    Nothing you have said– other than the mere denial– works against the idea that Christianity is both personal and public, nor against the idea that a Christian should express faith both in private deeds and in public, up to and including matters of policy.

    The teachings of Jesus are deeply personal in scope, but not exclusively personal in scope. Part of the wisdom of Torah is the vision of life as a seamless garment rather than a set of compartments. So force faith into a private sphere if you must, but to pretend that doing so is more attuned to the teachings of Jesus seems ill advised when there's every reason to think the contrary.

  30. Bob  •  Jul 31, 2011 @11:13 pm

    I'm just going to point out the following:

    1. I've heard similar statements from some militant atheists (who are my Facebook friends).

    2. #1 doesn't excuse the despicable comments Ken points out.

    3. Neither of these groups should be taken to represent the greater group to which they belong. Particularly in the case of Christians, they should be called out as being Christians in name only.

  31. R. Raymond  •  Aug 1, 2011 @12:16 am

    David,

    I take your post on this blog as how you deal with the world, after all you diminished the worth Ken's words and I can only see this as your Weltangshauung. Or is your post on a blog one thing and the rest of the world another to you? Only you, apparently, know. I don't.

    Unfortunately, the ridiculous fringe is framing the question, whether the secular fringe or the religious fringe (I wince then ball my fist when some born-again says my wife isn't truly a Christian, but usually reply "my wife only had to be born once"). I don't remember the exact wording of the adage, but he whom frames the question is well on the way to winning the argument. Why would you let the fringe frame the question? We saw it with McVeigh and now Breivik. I'd have no problem with them being labeled "right-wing Christian nuts" if they actually were, but they weren't.

    Rick H.,

    The US government support of Christianity is cultural (the Judeo-Christian mythos permeates our culture, and I do mean both) and really doesn't extend deeply enough to be an issue. The 1802 "wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptist Association is only Jefferson's interpretation, and he was a very minor player in the c. 1789 debate. I don't see acknowledgement of that heritage, by way of creche or tree or Ten Commandments, as making a "law respecting an establishment of religion" without stretching words to the point of breaking them.

    However, while I'd agree with you on Christianity as a private religion ("praying in the closet", my "kingdom is not of this earth") unless the US government suddenly draws laws directly from the Synoptics, recognizing is not the same as "making a law respecting the establishment".

    I do agree that David's response was a non sequitur; those quotes are easily interpreted as personal given that I've never read of Jesus calling for a government based on his principles. If not, then David needs to be in the square like the Egyptian Islamists are today.

    While I have known Christians who follow the Synoptics, I admit it is too few.

    BTW, you have a great blog. Please keep it going.

  32. R. Raymond  •  Aug 1, 2011 @12:49 am

    David,

    I agree with everything you wrote in the last part of your 10:39 comment, so long as you understand that that agreement is only that each and everyone of us should live our lives, private and public, by our principles, however derived, and vote by those principles. I can only hope yours are derived from the principles of the Enlightenment and the known injustices of the Crown (from Judges to Quartering), from which our Founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And not from your interpretation of scripture alone.

    Bob,

    The nasty, militant, dogmatic, fundamentalist atheists drive me to anger. Not only because they are used to describe atheists in the same manner fundamentalist Christians are used to describe Christians, but because those atheist's claims to rationality is like an anus's claim to being a vagina. Just doesn't hold up to scrutiny…

  33. Justin Urrkunt  •  Aug 1, 2011 @1:03 am

    Ken,
    Just because an individual claims to be a Christian doesn't mean that he/she is. Jesus did state that by their fruits you would be able to recognize his followers. The people you cited appear to be rotten to the core.
    Jesus also stated that people would do many things in his name and yet in the future – at the day of reckoning – he would profess to never know these people because they didn't follow God's law of love.
    Please don't let the representations of a few tarnish an entire group because this can cause a person to become prejudiced.
    However, any chance you are able to expose individual Fuckwads is wonderful and educational. Thanks to you I now know what the GIF theory is.

  34. Justin Urrkunt  •  Aug 1, 2011 @1:24 am

    Frankly, I'm getting tired of all the memorials that are set up at the location of someone passing away, whether they be at the WTC or along the highways. That's why you have a grave marker. If this pattern, which seems to have arisen in the last 20 years, doesn't stop, then in 50 years all the outdoors are going to look like a cemetery.

  35. cackalacka  •  Aug 1, 2011 @8:13 am

    As a liberal Christian who is fed up with militant christianism, I think Ken is spot-on.

    Our faith has brought the world some delightful history, like the 30 Years War, the Troubles, the Inquisition (interesting numbers R. Raymond, unverifiable, probably wrong, but interesting) to say nothing of the hot-button issues of the 20th century which have their own, je ne sais quois (literally.)

    Those people who are saying the muslims or atheists or (insert faith or flavor that upsets me for some unjustified reason) 'did it first,' or 'hate just as much as me,' are completely missing the point that can be found in Matthew, chapters 5-7.

    You can be a Christian, or you can be an ignorant hateful asshole, but not both.

    I've got atheists that I love, who often ask why I have faith; people like these Facebookers that froth in stupidity make the message of Christ that much more difficult. If your faith is undermined by Ken's salient points, perhaps you don't really have it?

  36. piperTom  •  Aug 1, 2011 @8:24 am

    It is a small minority of atheists who go actively seeking a reason to be offended by Religious symbols. I'm not among their number, but I will defend them to this extent: if there were not an active opposition, the (largely Christian) government would encroach more and more on the limits of Establishment. They have been doing it, with various success, since about 313 CE.

    We do need a solution for vexatiously litigious people of all persuasions. How 'bout a nice "loser pays" rule?

  37. piperTom  •  Aug 1, 2011 @8:26 am

    "Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus, as quoted by David.

    Ummm, about THAT, Jesus…

    "A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:27)

    "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

    Stoning advised when "a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey…" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

    In my experience, sons (and daughters) are all, at some point, stubborn and rebellious. Luckily, strict obedience to the law is rare.

  38. Goober  •  Aug 1, 2011 @10:15 am

    WHile I have nothing against the cross being on the memorial, I do hold it against any Christian who forgets that there were also Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists killed in the 9/11 attacks, and who also cannot fathom why they would find it distasteful to have a religious symbol erected in their honor that does not match their religion.

    I know Christians who would be horrified to have a Star of David erected in a memorial in their honor, or a horn of Vishnu or whatever. Why they cannot extend that to other people and understand why they might not want a religious symbol that does not match their religion commemorating their loved ones is beyond me.

    What I am now waiting for is for the family of a muslim or Jew killed in the WTC attacks who want to erect a star and crescent or a star of david, and then listen to the Christians wail about how "this is a christian country" (BTW, it isn't) and how those other symbols just shouldn't be there. Of course, the hypocrisy of that will not occur to them at all.

  39. David  •  Aug 1, 2011 @10:15 am

    Ummm, about THAT, Jesus… ~~piperTom

    No doubt the Torah, which Jesus endorsed vigorously under a certain understanding, describes a theocracy with policies that seem much better suited to ancient Palestine than to postmodern America. But this simply underscores my point: Rick Horowitz's claim that "Christianity, as originally preached by your Jesus, was intended to be a personal religion, not a social phenomenon" is, at best, an unhelpful oversimplification. At worst, it's simply mistaken.

    (As for the "rebellious child" law– properly interpreted, it covers hooligans, not naughty kids. But that's beside the point.)

  40. Goober  •  Aug 1, 2011 @10:25 am

    PiperTom – Your ignorance is showing. I always love when folks come out and start going on about all the hate in the old testament as if those were the words of jesus.

    You're wrong, by the way. The Old Testament laws are part of an Old Covenant of laws that were set up to dictate ancient agrarian societies in present day israel. Jesus's appearance on Earth, and subsequent sacrifice, was to set up a New Covenant with God's Christian followers and essentially expunge the Old Convenant…

    … in simple layman's terms, the rules laid out in leviticus, deuteronomy, genesis, and so forth are all pretty much null and void. The New Convenant laws are much more simple:

    Love your neighbor as if he were yourself;
    and love your Lord, God.

    There are a select few more added in here and there, but they all more or less follow the same set of rules laid out in the ten commandments. The 600 and some-odd (really strange, by the way) laws laid out in the remainder of the Old Testament are pretty much relics to modern Christians – they no longer apply. This is why modern Christians can eat lobster and shrimp and pork, and wear blended fabric clothing, and shave off their beard, and get tattoos, and a myriad of other things that they now do that are specifically banned by the Old Testament, without being in contradiction to their religious mandate.

    Any detractor of Christianity who uses Old Testament laws to show how ridiculous Christianity is is simply showing how ridiculous HE is, because it shows that he is spending time detracting from – even slandering – a religion, when he has no idea what he is even talking about.

    If one more person calls me a hypocrite because I wear a cross around my neck and get caught eating shrimp scampii down at the local Red Lobster, I swear to G-d that I'm going to break the great commandment and punch that neighbor in his face. (J/K, I'm actually not that angry at PiperTom, just laughing my ass off at his ignorance).

  41. David  •  Aug 1, 2011 @10:45 am

    @Goober, it won't do to mock piperTom ("Your ignorance is showing…. You’re wrong, by the way…. he has no idea what he is even talking about…. not that angry at PiperTom, just laughing my ass off at his ignorance ") for not showing an awareness of the dispensational interpretation of the Law of Moses.

    After all, you seem to miss the fact that his remarks, while cocky, were responsive to the point at hand. More importantly, you seem unaware of your own ignorance in the very matter you address.

    You take for granted a total discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New. But that understanding of Christianity is just one of several historically mainstream approaches. For example, Covenant Theology, a core hermeneutic in Reformed Protestantism, sees continuity, not discontinuity, between the Old and New Covenants. Nearly all Christians agree that the dietary laws (and indeed all the Mosaic laws that serve to prefigure the Messiah) have no further relevance once the Messiah has come. But the dietary and ritual provisions are only a subset of the Law of Moses. What to make of the civil and criminal statutes in that code has been a subject of considerable debate in Christendom for centuries.

    To put the matter differently, you assert that "in simple layman’s terms, the rules laid out in leviticus, deuteronomy, genesis, and so forth are all pretty much null and void." In doing so, you seem wholly unaware that this is a controversial position in Christian theology, not a given.

    Committing a historical blunder of that magnitude doesn't mesh well with your attempt to call someone else out for ignorance.

  42. Corporal Lint  •  Aug 1, 2011 @10:45 am

    Any detractor of Christianity who uses Old Testament laws to show how ridiculous Christianity is is simply showing how ridiculous HE is, because it shows that he is spending time detracting from – even slandering – a religion, when he has no idea what he is even talking about.

    This cuts both ways, in that you can easily find Christians (and not only Fred Phelps) citing Leviticus as justification for things like anti-gay prejudice.

    The great mistake of the earliest Church was in not taking the scissors to the Hebrew scriptures at the moment they decided that you didn't have to be Jewish to be Christian.

  43. David  •  Aug 1, 2011 @11:13 am

    The great mistake of the earliest Church was in not taking the scissors to the Hebrew scriptures at the moment they decided that you didn’t have to be Jewish to be Christian. ~~Corporal Lint

    Asked and (rightly) answered in AD 144.

  44. David  •  Aug 1, 2011 @12:37 pm

    @R. Raymond: You say "you diminished the worth Ken’s words".

    To clarify, I agree completely with his assessment of the material he reproduces. I question only this assertion he makes: "To the extent we allow this sort of thing be the face of American Christianity, more people will choose another path".

    My rebuttal is that trying to win over the sorts of people who reject this path because of freaks on its fringe is rather pointless. Sort of like trying to win the undying affection of someone who judges people chiefly by their choice of chaw….

    My counterproposal would be to ignore the discursive sewer and to aim higher.

  45. Corporal Lint  •  Aug 1, 2011 @2:43 pm

    Asked and (rightly) answered in AD 144.

    Totally different things. Marcion was a dualist who claimed that the deity of the Hebrew scriptures was the demiurge. That God was not God, that Jesus had no physical form, and so on. I was suggesting that a lot of the parts of the OT on the Law (and some on the Covenant) don't work once we believe that Jesus has appeared as the fulfillment of the Law (and the beginning of a new Covenant), and that the early Church should have excised a lot of Hebrew scripture accordingly. This assumes a new dispensation, not a new deity.

  46. David  •  Aug 1, 2011 @5:05 pm

    @Corporal Lint "Totally different things."

    Actually, they're nearly identical things. The point, not well summarized in the Wikipedia article, is that Marcion responded to his assessment of the Hebrew Bible by "taking the scissors to the Hebrew scriptures at the moment [he] decided that you didn’t have to be Jewish to be Christian." — your very point, though interlarded with the demiourgos stuff.

    This Jeffersonian approach to the text is what he's best known for, and his canon consisted of pretty much what you'd end up with if you followed your recommended course of editing.

  47. G Thompson  •  Aug 2, 2011 @12:19 am

    Did anyone else click on Sindy's link? I get some FB page that has a Demotivational Picture as an avatar that says.. I kid you not.. SLUTS

    ROFLMFAO

    As for Atheists going to hell, or some deity striking them dead.. umm Logic Fail.

    I myself contend that I am an Athiest, though for those that believe that something had to start the Universe, whether it is "god" (which one?) or the Flying Spagetti Monster each to their own I say, as long as they don't try to force/witness their ideology on others who do not welcome it. Organised religion in my opinion has done extreme good, though history shows that it also does extreme horrors. Moderation and an Open Mind are the best for anything.

    As Heinlien once said: Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense, hurting yourself isn't a sin… just stupid!

  48. Goober  •  Aug 2, 2011 @8:08 am

    @ David – Simply because some Christians are misguided and totally wrong in the continuity discussion doesn't mean that I'm ignorant. The Bible says what it says and means what it means. They can ignore that if they choose, but it doesn't make them right.

    More simply put, just because some people argue that 2+2=5 doesn't make that argument valid. If you want to take the "continuity" Christians to task for their hypocrisies, by all means, go to town, but don't lump all Christians into the same boat, as PiperTom did, when you point them out. It doesn't apply to all. Hell, it doesn't even apply to most.

    You are right that I was a bit snarky and discourteous to PiperTom, however. Can I blame it on a bad day yesterday? I can only hope that he'll accept my apology – Sorry PiperTom. I am typically more courteous in my online dealings – I make it point to be so simply because it is so easy to fall into discourtesy in such an anonymous venue. i wouldn't have said those things to your face – I would have been far more polite if we had been sitting together instead of communicating over the keyboard, which means that i temporarily fell into the cowardice and asshattery of the GIF syndrome and for that I apologize.

    As for the discussion wherein people seem to be revealing their religious affiliation, I am sitting on the fence between outright agnosticism and unaffiliated Christianity. I attend no Church, and have trouble committing to a God that I'm not even certain is the right God of the myriad to choose from, if he even exists at all.

  49. Don Gwinn  •  Aug 2, 2011 @9:43 am

    I'm one of those atheists, but I try not to be one of "THOSE ATHEISTS" if you know what I mean. That said, I had two reactions to those threats.

    First, I can't tell whether some of those are parody. The girl who juxtaposed the love of Christ and the cross and the hope that everybody gets raped really reminds me of someone trolling. But who can say for certain?

    Second, well . . . . I guess these tough guys could try and see how that works out for them. But I'm betting they won't, and that's good.

  50. Carrie  •  Aug 2, 2011 @9:44 am

    Among believers, isn't faith considered a gift from God? Why all this hatred over something that is, per their belief structure, essentially poverty?

    Also, WOW.

  51. Marc  •  Aug 2, 2011 @10:24 am

    Ken, thanks from a fellow HLS '94 alum for (a) reminding me of David, and (b) reminding me that he was, indeed, one of the most open-minded, reasonable people in our class — it's unfortunately rare these days to find someone who believes in something passionately but is also open to intelligent debate on the subject.

  52. Mike O'Horo  •  Aug 2, 2011 @10:49 am

    This is an impressively cerebral comment thread. IMO, it's not about the relative merits of one group or another's beliefs or form of expression, but about the historical fact that, once those individual believers organize into a formal religious framework and create a sustaining organization, they seem to feel an organizational obligation to protect the "ism" at almost any cost. As a result, as one poster pointed out, a lot of very bad things have been done in the name of one invisible man in the sky or another, and the motivation of enough of the believers to take such actions in defense of the rightness or purity of those beliefs.

    Wouldn't it be interesting if a global law protected your right to believe anything you please, but prohibited public discourse about it? Then, you'd never know whose beliefs matched or clashed with your own, which would make it difficult to establish the "us" vs. "them" framework for vitriol and persecution.

  53. piperTom  •  Aug 2, 2011 @11:53 am

    To Goober: I was a bit snarky and short myself. No hurt feelings.

    And thanks to David for his well reasoned intercession.

  54. Ken  •  Aug 2, 2011 @1:31 pm

    Hug it out, bitches.

  55. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Aug 2, 2011 @2:36 pm

    I'm an agnostic, but I am also the son of two History teachers who recognizes that, whatever their faults, Protestant Christian cultures tend to be a distinct improvement on the alternatives. Dramatically atheistical societies in particular have racked up a singularly frightening record of genocide, misery, and mess in the 20th Century (Stalin probably had more people murdered – not killed in wars, murdered – than every power mad Catholic Pope in history combined).

    That said, I'm none too fond of proselytizing ANYTHING. Anybody who feels the need to call public attention to his religious beliefs (and an atheist certainly has religious beliefs, in that he firmly believes in something he cannot prove by reasoned argument … the non-existance of God) is almost certainly a jerk.

    But then I feel the same way about people who make a public fuss about their sexuality, their Pro-Sports allegiance, or their ethnicity.

  56. R. Raymond  •  Aug 2, 2011 @3:07 pm

    "Hug it out, bitches."
    I may be one of the bitches, but the concise, succinct, rapier wit of the comment makes it so difficult to type this between breathing spasms induced by uncontrollable laughter. I've had to type this literally three times …and now I'm on my fourth. That was so very, very good

  57. Matt Kaufmann  •  Aug 3, 2011 @12:02 pm

    Fortunately the majority of the group you are pointing out is composed of educated, right thinking people. What you've effectively pointed out is that it only takes an ignorant few, or a troll who set up fake FB accounts to make an entire group look foolish.

    People often say things which hurt their cause more than help it. Those who lack of control over their emotions, those who show anger or speak without logic are the minority that find themselves in the spotlight. Those that do or say ignorant or hateful things in the name of [insert religious affiliation here] are hardly ever doing so in accordance with the beliefs of their group.

    Look at what happened when a preacher threatened to burn Korans to protest the building of the Mosque in NYC. He was the one in the headlines of several media outlets which condemned Christianity as a whole. His lack of logic was only compounded by the lack of logic exhibited by journalists who chose to condemn the entire group rather than finding out how the majority of Christians felt about his ideas.

    So because a few who call themselves Christians (and probably strive to be better Christians) have made a mistake through a lack of good judgement, does it mean that all of Christianity has failed? I submit that it has not.

1 Trackback