I try to avoid talking about my views on religion because this is a political blog and, in the political realm, I respect all people’s religious beliefs and want to give them the maximum space to exercise them. If I talk about religion it is almost always because someone is not showing that same respect for others. But I will share this.
When I was a young boy being introduced to the basic tenets of Christianity (in its mainline Episcopalian form), I could not understand why Good Friday was good. The name kind of offended me. A supposedly blameless man was executed. How was this a good thing?
And I really never got over that hump. Because the answer was that this execution was the greatest and most important thing to ever happen in the history of the world.
There was never any chance that I was going to agree to that. So, it was really Good Friday and not Easter that prevented me from signing on to the whole program. Easter was part and parcel of the miracle thing, which I never took seriously for a single moment. Telling me that there was one man who could walk on water and heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, and then there were no more men like that for 2,000 years? Even at eight years-old I was like, “Do you think I’m stupid?”
Really, the only thing that gave me pause was that there were millions of adults who believed this story, including, for the most part, my parents. How could so many adults believe this stuff? It really was important to me that grown-ups bought into it, and so I didn’t just write it off completely.
What was probably decisive, however, was that I had absolutely no psychological need for the doctrines of Christianity. I had a normal, healthy fear of death based in the simple idea that I liked living and wanted to continue living. But I did not have the slightest belief in afterlife, nor do I wish for an afterlife. Long before anyone taught me about evolution and biology, I intuitively knew that I was the same basic creature as the bugs I crushed underfoot. No one talked about their afterlives. The prospect of annihilation never particularly bothered me.
I also never had much use for the concept of forgiveness. I made my mistakes and let my friends and family down, as all of us do from time to time. But I was never wracked with guilt. I had no inner need to confess any sins, nor to seek any forgiveness for them. If I felt bad about my behavior, I apologized. As far as I was concerned, that was the end of it, and the idea that I might need someone to be executed so that my mistakes would be erased simply had no resonance with me whatsoever.
Finally, the concept of a Sky God never made sense to me. I learned about Greek mythology in the third grade, and Zeus seemed no more plausible to me than Poseidon. I understood that millions of people used to believe in gods that did not really exist. Why were people clinging to just one of them?
I did pray once. My cat disappeared and I prayed that he would come back. He didn’t. And I didn’t bother asking for special favors again after that. I felt kind of stupid and slightly guilty the one time that I did pray. And I wasn’t at all surprised that it didn’t work.
For a while, as a young man, I was kind of obsessed with the fact that millions of people believed these things and it really bothered me. But, as I grew older, I came to understand that many people live in completely different psychological worlds. Some people are petrified of annihilation. Some people desperately need to believe that they will be reunited with loved ones who have passed away. Some people are overwhelmed with all-consuming guilt and cannot function without some forgiveness. People who have become addicted to drugs or alcohol often need to have their sins washed away and to turn their lives over to a higher power so they can have the strength to get better. The basic concepts of the Christian religion are believed by millions because millions need those concepts to get through the day.
So, then, I went through a process of reevaluation where the things I valued the most (logic, truth, science) were no longer right for everyone. Adults are not know-it-alls; they’re frail and flawed and fragile. It was stupid to think everyone should think like me because most people weren’t like me. Just because I didn’t have these inner struggles didn’t mean that others didn’t, and they needed remedies for their suffering.
So, I got over being resentful that people aren’t logical because I learned that people are imperfect and that’s never going to change. And I stopped caring what people believed as long as they didn’t try to impose those beliefs on others.
And, somewhere along the way, I finally understood why Good Friday is important and why so many people think it is good.
And I stopped caring what people believed as long as they didn’t try to impose those beliefs on others.
And there is the fly in the ointment. For most religions, this is just not possible. That is why it is also impossible to “live and let live” when it comes to religious belief. And that is what makes it such a potentially destructive mindset. Really, we have never been able to keep a proper divide between the religious and the non-religious. The religious will always evolve into somehow wanting to force their beliefs onto others. By persuasion, if possible. And by force, if necessary. That is why I have a hard time feeling, in the big scheme of things, that religion is a net positive for humanity.
While the religious beliefs of Americans have certainly had some negative consequences over our short history, I’d argue that we have struck the right balance. I believe Europe has largely abandoned Christianity because they allowed it to be an organ of the state for too long. The religion prospers here because there are no state religions or national religion. Oddly, religion is more compelling if it is free from state coercion.
Somewhat counterintuitively, the best way to eliminate religious thinking is to make it compulsory.
Good point, and a right-wing Christian guy I used to work with used to make this point as well. He obviously didn’t fit the stereotype. He would go on and on about Colonial-era Evangelicals and how they made precisely this argument. I don’t know the extent to which this was wishful thinking, but it echoes your point.
Religion was always an organ of the state in every country. That’s where it got its power. One thing the Founders here did right was try to separate the faith from the political/police power. Their achievement has been under heavy attack ever since.
Name an officially-atheist political movement that, having come to power, didn’t try to impose beliefs on others. Not “secular” – there are people all across the religious/irreligious spectrum believe in a secular government – but “atheist.”
The problem you mention, of forcing beliefs, is not a consequence of religion as opposed to unbelief. It is a consequence of liberalism vs. intolerance, and the specifics of the belief system don’t matter much.
The problem you’re talking about is a human problem, not a religion problem.
When the Pastafarians take over, it’ll be different.
“When” they take over. Right.
WAKE UP, AMERICA!
Religion by its very nature is authoritarian, though. And many people and freethinkers, such as E.O. Wilson (who isn’t an atheist I don’t think) would argue that “religion” is so ingrained in the human condition that on the whole they’re probably inseparable — even though he doesn’t believe theological religion will be with us forever.
Religion is inherently authoritarian, in the sense of religious authority having…er…authority over believers. I agree.
I do not agree that this necessarily manifests in terms of religious believers being more authoritarian to others, or being more deferential to other types of authority. There are far too many examples of humble, begging monks and of nuns chaining themselves to MX missiles that demonstrate otherwise.
I can’t disagree more than with your statement that the religious always will end up imposing their beliefs on others. We can start with the fact that universal religions are a fairly recent thing, historically. For most of our history as a species–meaning, in the time when our DNA became our DNA–we practiced local, indigenous religions, which are based on the premise that one people’s spiritual practice is that people’s and other peoples have others. I say this to suggest that whatever being human is, some spiritual practice is historically part of it, and historically, we have not been ones to impose that practice on others.
We also should note that while there has been all kinds of religious wars historically, it would be a mistake to assume that because we have the Crusades that religion is the only or even the determining factor in the process. I’m going out on a limb with Crusades, I know it, but bear in mind that the entire economic enterprise of even those wars had lots of other motives, particularly in those paying for it, than being a good Christian.
In terms of Christianity, it took on, historically, some of the characteristics you suggest most particularly during the 16th century religious wars following the Reformation. Tendencies that were there previously came much more into focus. Add to this the colonial dimension in among other places the Americas, and you had a lot of toxic ideology stewing in the brains of many people.
I practice Buddhism, and Buddhists don’t get a pass on religious violence, no matter how many people may try to tell you different.
Religious violence in this country, like for example the murder in my town of San Diego of Shaima Alawadi, cannot be separated from other social cleavages, race above all.
The point is not to exonerate religion, but to disaggregate the data.
.
Her story should be front paged or at least diaried in the pond. Be careful though, it may not be a hate crime!
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Your point about caution is well-taken, but as a San Diegan I would also be cautious about any time the Union-Trib suggests that racism is not involved!
I posted this on the U-T’s site in response to the article:
Maybe someone will read it and think.
It would be unusual if a woman beaten to death in her home was killed by someone she didn’t know.
It would be unusual for a hate crime to take place in a home like that, with a home invasion, without there first being a series of escalating incidents against the home, such as vandalism.
It would be unusual for someone who wanted to commit a violent hate crime to pick an individual victim, stick with that one individual, wait for weeks, go to the home, wait until they were alone in the house in the middle of the day, and go inside and attack the victim. By beating her, without a knife or firearm.
I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but women found beaten to death in their homes are almost killed by an acquaintance or loved one.
You miss my point. My point was about the editorial decision in the headline, its relationship to the substance of the article, and what the difference between the two indicates. The points you made make sense enough, but none of them were in the article in question. The point is there is a tendency in the press to shy away from anything that indicates that white racism is a huge problem in this country. I imagine you would agree on that.
I’ve heard that headlines are usually written by someone other than the author of the article. There certainly is a rather shocking disconnect in this case.
I could see how someone who was of the opinion that the crime was not a hate crime could find the details in the story consistent, but that is so totally not what the article was about.
You heard correctly. I had a really good journalism teacher in high school who pointed this process out to me.
At least in traditional print media (I don’t know how other media work as much) the best indicator of editorial bias–not the reporters–is the difference between what an article says and what a headline says the article says. The U-T definitely leans right, though not as much as it used to.
However, we do get to surf here. Things balance out.
he best indicator of editorial bias–not the reporters–is the difference between what an article says and what a headline says the article says
That’s a very interesting observation. I’m going to be on the lookout for it.
I followed a similar path. My mother took us kids to a Presbyterian church, which was really Church Lite, and I still never believed in any of the doctrines. I had to attend at her insistence, but I volunteered to sit in the nursery and watch the babies so I didn’t have to go to the services.
As I got older and lived on my own, I often had to work on Sundays, giving me an excuse. I always felt like a giant hypocrite if I did go, and eventually quit. I know it breaks my mother’s heart, but I simply do not believe in God or any religion.
I work in an area with a lot of older, white, Republican, Catholic women with whom I never discuss politics nor religion. They assume I’m just like they are. One woman confided in me that she will never understand how atheists get by in life. She said “they” must be miserable all of the time.
It was all I could do to tell her that we’re as happy or as sad as anyone else, because we’re still human beings. We just don’t get guilted into doing things we don’t believe in. And we’re good, moral, upstanding folks, too. Most of us, anyway.
I cringe when I read about the erosion of science education in Tennessee and the constant whining that there is some sort of ongoing attack on Christians. Do your thing and leave the rest of us to our own devices. Stay out of the public school system and the courts.
And leave me alone!
yeah, but that woman would probably be miserable without her consolations. Why deny them to her? That’s what I finally concluded.
Going through a family tragedy recently, I might point out that the destructive side of religious delusions regarding the nature of the world/universe. There is a damaging, core-shaking disillusionment that attends real events bringing about incontrovertible destruction of such beliefs. It can leave you with less tools to use to cope, rather than provide what the salesmen promise.
When you’ve spend your life believing that there is a spaghetti monster listening to your every prayer and making sure the world is “good” in sum while providing a grand and benevolent plan for our future. It’s a real cold shower to realize it just aint that way after, let’s say, 60 years. I think there are far better ways of comforting people besides blowing hot air up their ass. I don’t mean people don’t get comfort from their religious beliefs, but I think that because someone CAN use a crutch that it necessarily benefits them to do so.
should read: “but I DO NOT think that just because someone CAN use a crutch that it necessarily benefits them to do so. “
you’ll have to tell me about the tragedy in your family because no one has mentioned it to me.
I take your point, but i’d argue that it depends on the person and the circumstances.
I mean, if I gave you the job of going to funerals and disabusing the bereaved of any hope in the afterlife, you’d give up in under a week because you’d realize what a gigantic cock were were being.
Keep that in mind when dealing with the unbereaved.
Which atheists go around attacking peoples’ faith at funerals? The only ones that come to my mind are Christians.
It’s a thought experiment, Dave.
If you were to go to a funeral where people are the mourning the loss of a loved one and take it upon yourself to expound on the scientific reasons why there is no reason to believe in an afterlife, then you would self-evidently be acting like an unconscionably inconsiderate and rude person.
I don’t think anyone who isn’t inconsiderate and rude would disagree with me on that.
A college classroom might be an appropriate place for that conversation. Or a dorm room. Or, out among curious free-thinking friends.
All I wanted my friend anachro to think about is how it can be inconsiderate to crap on people’s religious beliefs even when you’re not at a funeral. And the reason is because religious people are more or less in need of the consolations of religion all the time. And to deny them those consultations causes them discomfort that is the same in kind, if not in depth, as that felt by the bereaved.
It’s really about having compassion for other people and not being judgmental. And we all know who emphasized those virtues.
I know you mean well here, BooMan, but I assure you: most religious people do not go through life “needing the consolations of religion all the time.”
That’s actually pretty condescending and self-aggrandizing.
Well, if you want to quibble with the meaning of “all the time” I guess you can. Most religious people are religious because it fulfills a psychological need or needs. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I am just not one of those people.
I’m not quibbling about your usage: I’m denying your central point.
Your claim that people hold religious beliefs or engage in religious practices out of a need for consolation is simply a falsehood, and an insulting one at that.
Do people attend museums because they need consolation? Are people who do not visit art museums simply stronger, and not in need of that crutch?
Or is it possible for you to acknowledge that others have something that adds to the richness of their lives, that you have not found?
You might as well tell me that people who listen to music are merely seeking consolation, while you are strong enough to be satisfied with only appreciating the visual arts.
I think you’re falling into false equivalency here. I wouldn’t dream of going to peoples’ houses, or standing in the door of their churches/temples and denouncing their beliefs and trying to turn them away from their faith. I wouldn’t dream of being next to somebody on an airplane and harassing them about their “salvation”. Like pretty much everybody skeptical of the claims of religion, I’ll argue about it when somebody else brings it up. I don’t go around attacking people about it.
Who is denying this woman her consolations? Nobody that I can see in the post. See how easy it is to fall into the “pity the persecuted believers” nonsense?
I mean how many atheists do you know of that defended the rights of Christians and others to their beliefs and their freedom of speech to market them? How many Christians do you know of that defend those rights for atheists?
I am not trying to create any equivalence at all.
Here’s something you’re missing. I’m a writer. When I write, I make arguments and try to convince people of things. If you happen to come across what I’ve written and you read it, then I have done the equivalent of going to your house and standing in your door.
If I wrote about all the reasons I don’t believe in what other people believe in, and if I did that with any frequency, then I’d be “harassing people about their salvation.”
Look, I complain about it when conservative Christians use religion to score political points and when they take their privately held political beliefs and try to implement them as public policy. I am not saying that atheists are doing anything equivalent.
I am saying that I personally do not feel any compulsion to try to correct people to my way of thinking on religious matters. And that’s really all I’m saying.
should say, “privately held religious beliefs.”
.
For the deep religious thoughts on Passover and the eve of Easter. Definition and etymology of Great or Holy or Good Friday .
Found this article in a Dutch religious newspaper today and refers to the topic of religion and politics in the USA.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Basically Jefferson’s religious beliefs, as with many other of the founding fathers, were Socinian and Deist, although apparently the Socinians retained belief in the virgin birth, which the Deists also tossed out the window.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socinians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
To orthodox Christians, or probably anyone adhering to a traditional (in the broadest sense of the word) views, but quite common among 18th-century English intellectuals. It would be wrong to claim that such people were not religious, but their religion was considerably revised.
Where it says:
“To orthodox Christians, or probably anyone adhering to a traditional (in the broadest sense of the word) views, but quite common . . . “
Read:
To orthodox Christians, or probably anyone adhering to a traditional (in the broadest sense of the word) form of Christianity, these were very heterodox views, but quite common . . . “
Although, part of me wishes this epic piece of snark was not so necessary.
My parents took me to the Galapagos when I was 6 aboard our small 32 foot sailboat. 600 miles offshore gives even a child a sense of what I call survival curiosity. We spent days revisiting Darwin’s realm and discussing the meaning and community. I won’t say my parents didn’t believe in the concept of god instead I’ll just say that they sought to follow their natural curiosity and teach me its value.
We were chased by mother nature in the form of water spouts, sharks & giant mantas and by mankind in the form of pirates. It is a place raw without the crushing touch of mankind and I think to this day I respect the lesson of just how small we are in the works of the world.
A very large percentage of controversies in religion, and arguments against religion, centers on the question of whether something really happened or not. I won’t attempt to get into why this became such a big question, the issue is a lot more complicated than just historical research. It goes to the very root of how the human mind works, or rather, different cognitive styles of different cultures, and how they can change. The centralizing of the question “did it really happen in fact?” was the doing theology as much as to science (peculiarly more so in the western world), because science and religion originally were not separate, and as they grew apart, each claimed ownership of historical truth. Also, theology had already long gotten into that habit, in disputes between religions and sects.
Nevertheless, in my view, the historical truth claim is a side-issue for religion, not the main thing. There is nothing inherently spiritual about the proof or disproof of a historical truth. Most historical truth claims have nothing to do with theology (like whether George Washington rode a white horse), and those that do are ancillary.
The fact is, a lot of what is in the bible does have historical grounding (if not necessarily literally true in all detail), a lot is debatable and not yet settled, and some seems highly unlikely or impossible, or proved to be connected with stories common to other religions, including some that no longer exist. In other words, it’s an epistemological mix.
What is truly central are the stories, the rituals, the meanings of them (interpretation), the coherency of the whole (i.e. commentary traditions), and the integration with everyday life acccording to the deeper and not the nitpickier and more disputable meanings.
And if something seems impossible or extremely unlikely, the fact is that all traditions agree that is the very meaning of the word miracle.
The fear is, of course, that the whole thing would be reduced to a story — and stories, as we all know are not true. But then, why do we spend so much time reading them? Because they ARE true, but it’s a different sort of truth. And that kind of truth is more basic to humanity than the other kind. I say this with no disparagement to historical truth, quite the contrary, I’m a historian myself, but in order to understand what history is I have to know what its relatives are and what are its limits. And where do these sories come from? The deepest roots of mankind. And where does mankind come from? Here’s where atheism proves as shallow as fundamentalism, it’s not a question of whether Noah and his family really were the only ones that survived the flood or how they could have gotten one pair of every species of animal (and plant?), although such questions, historically, have stimulated scientific thinking.
Sorry, where I wrote “the doing theology as much as to science”, I meant “the doing of theology as much as of science”.
Sean Carroll is my favorite living cosmologist, and author of “From Eternity to Here”, a book on the nature of time. Here is his post where he talks of the loss of one of his mentors, Carl Sagan. I think atheists have a lot to say about the meaning of life, basing their beliefs on science. I am enlightened by Carroll’s awareness of the moment, knowing that he will never have that moment again.
http://mblogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/03/19/sagan-and-druyan-shared-time-in-the-cos
mos/
I appreciate you sharing.
Look I have similar feelings about atheists and agnostics. I believe in God but I try not to be a dick about people who don’t. Unless all I ever hear you fucking talking about is how smart you are because you don’t. Then I get kinda pissed off (I’m talking to you, Bill Maher).
But these conversations are almost entirely geared toward Christians or Catholics. No one is snickering to themselves because many Native Americans worship the earth or animal deities. Or African tribes who do the same. Or Rastafarians. Somehow respect is afforded these believers and they’re treated as unique aspects of certain cultures. No one is calling Wiccans “illogical” because they believe in spells.
I just find that if you don’t believe in some higher power, fine, say that. Then move on. Arguing you have some superior intellect or that you’re not as needy emotionally as others is rather insulting. I know plenty of atheists who can explain the many holes in the idea of the Trinity but will cry uncontrollably because of some pet they lost years ago. You don’t need a sky god but you can’t live without the comfort of your cat?!?!? We all have our own weird beliefs.
Unfortunately, conservatives have politicized and codified religion so I realize the blowback is somewhat justified. I just wish people wouldn’t substitute “religion” for meaning “conservative christianity.” Not the same thing.
Not to be a dick, but some logic is superior to others. Natural Selection is a law, and can be proven mathematically. Evolution is a testable scientific theory and one would be illogical not to believe in it, given all of the scientific evidence. When a school board, like one in my home state of Pennsylvania, says that science teachers have to emphasize the “holes in the theory”, I would have to be a real dick and tell the school board in nice terms that they are a bunch of religious extremists. Yes, I see them as inferior in logic and in their moral foundations. Women’s reproductive rights are being taken away by religious extremists. Their religious beliefs are whacked and they need to be put down.
Republicans. Religious extremists. Religion.
One of these things are not the same thing.
I hate to explain this again but these dudes are not Christians. Jesus spoke about many thing in the Bible. Homosexuality was not one of them. He did get pissed about capitalism in the church temple tho. He was kind to his fellow man. I don’t believe he advocated for tax cuts.
All I’m saying is this extremism shit doesn’t have a got damn thing to do with me. You wanna call them religious extremists that’s fine. Christian is not the word I would use.
Republicans are taking away women’s reproductive rights. They use religion so they can exploit it. If the 27% dediced to become agnostic tomorrow they would follow. They want power. Never confuse the tactic for the conviction.
Their religious beliefs are whacked and they need to be put down.
And what about the millions of Americans – as well as, for instance, at least the last two popes – who held very similar religious beliefs, but who also understand the acknowledge the existence of natural selection and species evolution?
It’s unlikely they’d hold similar religious beliefs and reject evolution. The people who reject it usually don’t think of Catholics or “the last two Popes” as “Christians,” for instance.
“Accept evolution.” Sorry, I’ve got the people he has in mind narrowed too well. After all, I grew up with them and attended their church for a good 8 years.
And yet, they do hold similar religious beliefs. The religious beliefs held by evolution-denying and evolution-believing Christians are very similar.
I think you are failing to differentiate between “religious beliefs” and “beliefs held by religious people.”
The point is, if religious believers deny evolution and global warming, it’s not their religious beliefs that compel them to do so. There plenty of religious believers who do recognize the reality of science.
Just as there are plenty of Randian conservatives who deny human induced climate change.
No, it is their religious beliefs. If they accept evolution, then there was no literal Adam and Eve, then Jesus’ lineage is then a lie, which makes Jesus a lie, and then their entire religion comes crashing down. The way they set up their own religious world, this is an encompassing fact.
It’s not just some belief they hold that’s independent of their religion. It’s completely intertwined.
This is also why they have no problem with virtually every other science that also conflicts with the literal Genesis story — such as Earth science, and platetectonics.
In my defense, it is Good Friday and I was raised in a Christian family.
If this were Wiccan Sunday and I’d been raised in a witch cult, then I’d probably have written a different piece.
I know that my point of view comes off as condescending to people of faith, but it isn’t intentional. I’m just being honest. The fact that being honest about these things makes me come off as kind of a dick is one of the main reasons why I don’t usually talk about them. I’d rather let you have your religious beliefs without any judgment from me.
But, today I just felt like sharing what was on my mind. I apologize if I come across as some kind of smug jerk.
You didn’t. I re-read what you said and you actually came off pretty well. I apologize if I came off like a smug jerk in my response.
The alleged miracles pretty much finished me off after getting sent to Sunday school, getting confirmed, being in the church choir, etc., for many young years. My take was a little different, though. I could have maybe accepted to some degree the notion that there had been some kind of age of miracles, but what got to me was that the healing and raising of the dead were just PR stunts. If we believe the stories, Jesus was clearly just using his powers to show off, not out of compassion. There were people all over the place sick, dying, and dead, and he rebuked them for wanting to get some of what he was passing out to others. So, I thought, if he can do this for a few when there’s a crowd watching, why not everybody? If his alleged divinity gives him the power, and if he presents his revivals as a good thing, then what’s with this “good father god” that screws everybody else when the spotlight is turned off?
Still no answers that would let me believe any of it. Some people do need the belief, and I’ll defend their right to hold it as long as they don’t try to impose it on the rest of us — which they’ve regularly tried to do for thousands of years now. Gotta admit, though, I was considerably more respectful of religion before this current crop of the professionally pious took it over. They’ve probably proved that it’s a seed that never grows into much more than a noxious weed, however promising some of the side sprouts may be.
For those who would like a more nuanced discussion, I happened to see an interesting one between philosopher Alain de Botton and Chris Hedges on CSPAN. De Botton thinks post-religion folks need to look more closely at what religion offers and adopt/adapt it if they want to be taken seriously. He makes some good points about the intersection of religion and culture, and the need to keep some of the culture even if we can’t buy into the religion.
Alain de Botton is right about one thing
I do not like de Botten or Hedges when it comes to religion. I think Hedges is some degree correct about people like Harris and Hitchens — certainly about Pat Condell. But overall they’re both annoying to me. See PZ Myers’ article linked above.
And what we should teach in the schools, unapologetically, is that no documented miracle has ever occurred and that there is, in fact, no such thing as a supernatural event. Even dillusions can be explained as natural events. This should be taught in history classes and reinforced in science classes.
How about we don’t teach anyone’s opinions about religious matters in the schools?
You know, as opposed to teaching yours, how about we follow the Constitution, and leave such matters out of the public schools entirely?
Oh, and could you please tell us some more about these people determined to impose their beliefs on others?
I most certainly don’t want to impose “my beliefs”, I want to impose logic .
And there are plenty of recent/current examples of religious extemism being imposed through state legislators and school boards. Pennsylvania had a case go to a circuit course regarding intelligent design, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas all have some sort of issue regarding the teaching of creationism in public schools. You stirred my interest by asking, though. I will go back and review the status of these cases. There are much bigger problems in the areas of climate change and women’s reproductive rights that need immediate attention and energy.
In the New Testament narrative, over and over Jesus asked his disciples, his followers, and anyone at random to “Follow me”. Few have. One of the most recent was Dr. Martin Luther King.
In my estimation, there are only two movies that really deal with Biblical narrative honestly. (I don’t mean rotely.) The first is “The Gospel According to St. Matthew” by Paolo Pasolini (an atheist, by the way). And the alternative narrative “The Last Temptation of Christ” by Martin Scorcese, based on Nikos Kazantzakis’s book.
The narrative of Good Friday is about a guy who mocks the Roman puppet king, violently attacks the moneychangers in the Temple, and calls for the religious to pay attention to the poor, the ill, …And who clearly knows the consequences of his actions. The corrupt religious leaders have him arrested by the occupation authorities, he receives a religious trial before them, a secular trial before Roman authorities. The Roman governor is swayed by a lynch mob to execute him. He is executed as terrorist zealot after being mocked in the same terms as his street theater mocked the puppet king. And he dies. His friends collect the body, follower donates a tomb, the women perform all of the mourning duties. Then the Sabbath intervenes and no one does anything. The narrative says that on the day after the Sabbath one of the ladies who prepared his body for burial goes to the tomb and finds that it is empty. The narrative goes on but this is enough.
The call of the narrative is not to belief but to action. And the overwhelming emphasis on belief by comfortable folks sitting in comfortable buildings with the moneyed men in the congregation setting the limits on what the preacher can say is where I parted company with the institution that claims that the narrative is true.
The interplay of the religious with the Occupy movement is interesting. Early on, some clergy and seminarians from DC brought to DC as satire a “golden calf” (significant from the narrative about Moses) and marched it around Wall Street. The point would have been graphic if they ever had to march by the bull statue that is front of the NYSE.
And yet, the Episcopal Church that serves Wall Street pointedly refused to provide space for Occupy Wall Street after they were evicted from Zucotti Park.
Likewise, the San Francisco Catholic archdiocese had Occupy San Francisco people evicted from an empty building that Occupy San Francisco intended to turn into a community center and homeless shelter.
But this is not new. Father Philip Berrigan and his brother Daniel Berrigan were pursued by the FBI for dumping duck blood into the Selective Service records in Catonsville Maryland. Both went to jail.
Societies like to kill people who profess an idea that stands in judgment of the society’s injustice. The Christian Easter narrative is a story that you cannot kill those ideas and that the society will eventually face the consequences of its injustice.
I’ll not go here into the way that religion in the US has become just a marketing campaign to finance the salaries of some highly compensated entrepreneurial preachers (even in small churches) who seek special privileges from the government. Let’s say, don’t get me started.
This statement surprised me. Never?
You have led a fortunate life, my friend.
You wrote,
Really, the only thing that gave me pause was that there were millions of adults who believed this story, including, for the most part, my parents.
How could so many adults believe this stuff?
It really was important to me that grown-ups bought into it, and so I didn’t just write it off completely.
All your life, if anything keeps you wondering it will be that.
Sometimes you will wonder if they are faking, or if they only desperately want to believe, but don’t really.
“Who could?” you will ask yourself.
Long before anyone taught me about evolution and biology, I intuitively knew that I was the same basic creature as the bugs I crushed underfoot.
No one talked about their afterlives.
So Hinduism might have worked for you?
Kidding.
For a while, as a young man, I was kind of obsessed with the fact that millions of people believed these things and it really bothered me.
But, as I grew older, I came to understand that many people live in completely different psychological worlds.
Some people are petrified of annihilation.
Some people desperately need to believe that they will be reunited with loved ones who have passed away.
Some people are overwhelmed with all-consuming guilt and cannot function without some forgiveness.
People who have become addicted to drugs or alcohol often need to have their sins washed away and to turn their lives over to a higher power so they can have the strength to get better.
The basic concepts of the Christian religion are believed by millions because millions need those concepts to get through the day.
I think you nailed it.
You may be only the second or third person I have ever known who basically went his whole life as an unbeliever, if I understand you correctly.
Rare thing.
you should have seen how pissed and bitter I was when I caught me parents lying about Santa Claus at about age five or six. Why would adults lie?
Just so.
At some point it occurs to you.
So far as well-meant deceptions go, Santa = God.
Happy Easter.