What Colors You Flying?

I am a Christian but I find that sometimes religion divides people rather than unites them. Christians rarely hang out with groups of people from another faith. They tend to stick with other Christians for friends.

So true, Janet.

""Christians rarely hang out with groups of people from another faith. They tend to stick with other Christians for friends. ""

So what? That's like stating the obvious and saying that liberals divide people and only hang with other liberals and complaining about it.

Food for thought, Janet. I can see Jeff's point, there's nothing wrong with choosing like-minded friends. I don't know that you meant there is anything wrong with it, in the sense of doing something bad. But there is a danger in any group becoming too insular.

"They tend to stick with other Christians for friends."

For extreme Christians this presents a problem that leads to insular tunnel vision, as they begin think of non-Christians as corrupting of their "faith" with ideas that are "of the devil." Eventually some seem to fall into a complete fantasy world of "faith," which supports their own ego with a heroic scenario of the Christian (this applies to some other religions as well) as being a warrior in a titanic battle of good vs. evil.

I've seen this play out, but personally, I have friends from all kinds of religious and political beliefs. We may not always agree, BUT we are always respectful.

Nicely done! Thanks for posting to The Spiritual Atheists.

A good article. Thanks.

""There is another issue involved. Atheists are a growing minority, but still a minority, and they are in many ways disrespected and deprived of their rights to "freedom from religion."""

I find that comment ridiculous when the current administration and most of it's followers think that the government is supposed to be "atheist'. Atheism rules the day in almost every court decision.

I respect the fact that you acknowledge atheism as a religion though...

Jeff, I am not your enemy. But I think you are looking at the world thru some kind of lens which distorts reality severely. I disagree with the opinions you just stated, and moreover, I certainly do not accept them as being facts.

Your last statement, "you acknowledge atheism as a religion"is just weird. I have no idea what you mean by that.

You did stimulate some thoughts I hadn't really considered. That is, on the question of why believers feel persecuted. I hadn't really thought about that question up to now. I can speculate a little, and I will. Then I'll ask you, since you obviously feel persecuted as a believer, could you name some very concrete specific ways in which you are persecuted?

My speculation: Although still in the vast majority, the percentage of believers has been and remains in a steady decline. But what you can't face is that it is not any evil external force that is causing this drop in the percentage of believers. No more than the evils of capitalism caused the collapse of the USSR.

I think there are a lot of good things to be found in religions, including Christianity. And some anachronistic things. And some horrible things.

With that off my chest, how about it? What exactly has occurred that made you feel persecuted? Specifics, please, not generalities.

You'll find this amazing but even though I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools my entire life, all the way through college, I am extremely close to an theist. At most I am a Deist. Yes fundamental Christianity is definitely in decline.

I don't feel persecuted, never have, and I certainly don't see anybody in the Christian community as a threat. Your "freedom from religion" claim is erroneous and nowhere in the constitution does it say that the government has a responsibility to SHIELD you from religion.

Here is a specific example that makes religious people feel "threatened" by atheist activists groups like freedom from religion. In my city, the city symbol is the skyline. It's very pretty actually. There are two cascading hills on each side of a valley. Upon entering the city you have to drive over a ridge Once on top of the adjacent ridge you see the skyline lights beaming to the stars. The view at dusk is amazing with the city lights challenging the fading sunset. That image is one everybody in the area knows and it's the official city image on all the welcome signs, cop cars, city buildings and letterheads.

On the two hills on each side of the valley are churches. They are both as old as the city itself and a major part of the iconic image. Well, some offended liberals claimed that having two crosses in the official city image is against "separation of church and state" and they filed a lawsuit. The city didn't want to spend money on the endless court proceedings and attorneys fees so they literally scrubbed all the plaques and wooden welcome signs of the crosses.

Obviously some of the city's religious were outraged. Not only at the offensive way the city dealt with the issue, without having any form of public debate, but at the fact that some people are so miserable, they can't stand the fact that one of the most scenic landscape profiles in the area had religious symbols in it.

The reality that a landscape profile has church steeples and crosses in it should not be offensive, it is NOT an attempted by the government to establish a state religion, and the case should have been thrown out of the first round in court. The group who was offended and pushed the lawsuit was "Freedom From Religion" out of Madison...

The government is NOT atheist. It is NEUTRAL. That's the point atheists seem to have a hard time understanding.

having two crosses in the official city image is against "separation of church and state" and they filed a lawsuit

That is absolutely ridiculous!

Obviously some of the city's religious were outraged

If it was part of the city's skyline, EVERYONE should have been outraged.

The government is NOT atheist. It is NEUTRAL.

I wish everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY, regardless of religion, or lack thereof, would remember that.

I'm not exactly "amazed" by your being "close to atheist ... at most a Deist" but it helps clarify your viewpoint. But you can't deny that American culture has made atheists feel like the underdog whose day is about to come. They have historically been reviled and vilified in this society and still are. There are some parallels with other "pride" movements, blacks, women, gays. Some people in liberation movements have a tendency to get carried away and want to go beyond equal treatment, even to revenge against a former oppressor, or sometimes to tip the scales the other way like affirmative action.

The case you mentioned about the skyline sounds like a group of atheists who really should find something more important to worry about. I feel strongly in separation of church and state. So technically, the atheists have a point, but I think in that case the point has been stretched to an extremist, even absurd level. The way you described the case, it sounds silly and foolish and pretty pointless. Barry Goldwater had the sexy aphorism, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." In the real world though, extremism is self-indulgent, which is a vice.

So I don't defend or agree with extremists on either side.

But I don't think they want government to "shield" them from religion. They just don't want their tax money to support it.

There is a conflict that cannot be ignored and must be settled one way or another. I would like to see a re-drawing of the lines of conflict. Instead of atheists vs. theists the fight should be between normal reasonable people (religious or not) and extremist nutjobs (religious or not).

I can see this this. I know many, many people of different faiths and thinking that would never want to go toward Arrmaggedon, or those, "final solutions", that would be brought about by a theocracy. These reasonable theists, and those of other beliefs, and thinking, need to join together to work out better ways of society and civilization to exist and thrive.

Extremism is a BAD thing, regardless of the issue, or "side".

Exactly!

"Religion" does not necessarily mean theism.

I regret not having made clear the distinction between theistic and non-theistic religions, such a Buddhism, which does not say anything one way or another about the existence of God. It is a religion because it deals with ideas of ultimate concern and importance to us humans. It happens it's not about a supreme being. It neither affirms nor denies the existence of such a being. It is about improving one's own awareness and way of interacting with others.

I do not draw any philosophical line of cause and effect here. Rather, a simple observation: Buddhists tend to be nonviolent and try to work things out in an enlightened manner using principles of compassion and understanding. They have never gone on any military escapades trying to convert people to Buddhism. So I just want to make sure we take note that when people think of horrible acts done in the name of religion, you do see that with theistic religions, but Buddhists have been severely oppressed and their typical response to horrible brutal oppression is not fighting back with hatred and violence. Instead it is a plea for peace and tolerance.

I recall hearing Matthew Fox, an excommunicated Trappist monk, speak at a local episcopalian church a few years back. He was being criticized for holding catholic services with buddhist monks. His response (I'll never forget it): I'll pray with anyone, who'll pray with me."

That is the gist of true religion - not the tribalism" that one is usually presented with.

As for atheism, it is a religion too, in my opinion, and subject to the same "tribalism" as any religion.

Bill Maher has reasoned along those lines as well. He's a pretty good thinker. Nationalism, he states, is also a religion mentality.

Yeah, I'd agree that nationalism is just another form of tribalism. If we were able to get beyond this kind of tribal thinking, then we'd be in a new universe. War - on any level - would simply be irrelevant.

I have a bone to pick with "religions" because for the most part they are exoteric, objective, and orthodox while falsely claiming spirituality as "theirs" ... they are most often institutionalized with creed and dogma, have self proclaimed "authorities" to mediate between man and God ...most of them differ from each other to the degree they badmouth and fight each other as each claims their God the one and only and the others God to be false ... there is a hierarchical construct involved with the organizations and often a lot of money is involved at the top ... not to mention power and control ...

I have discovered Generic Spirituality, it comes from withIN the person, it amounts to the ego self meeting the higher Self or Soul of the person, IE, GOD ... it is a spiritual realization of shared Love and Truth ... it is INtuitive and has no rules and regulations, no dogma nor creed, it is all natural, assures one as a member of the cosmic citizenship with an eternal future ... esoteric, subjective and mystical.

What more could one ask for (?) BTW, the "color" is Transparent ...

I like that "Generic Spirituality" description, Jerry. Inclusive, rather than exclusive. Experiential, rather than dogmatic. No labels to call oneself. Transcendent and transparent. Hard to see how you'd pick a fight with an orientation like that. :)

You get the picture Steve ... more could would they think out of the box they have allowed religions to build around them.

I think most if not all of these people are ex-Christians who are mad about the effect of doctrines they were taught, doctrines they once believed, but have now rejected.

A-a-a-anh! Wrong! But thanx for playing. What we're "mad" about is the constant attempts of "Christians" (read primarily Protestant fundamentalists) to drive "Christianity" back into our governments (Blue Laws, anybody?), courts (shall we make the Ten Commandments the basis for decisions?) and schools (Creationism as science?).

You stop that nonsense and we'll stop trying to stop you. THAT'S what the "attack on religion" is really about. You want to believe in invisible friends for adults? Not my problem, although it generally makes any science moot for you, and you should give up medicine and dentistry and all Christians should be Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses. You want your invisible friends to run our government, courts and schools? I'm gonna point and hoot, and encourage everybody else to do the same. After all, the concept of Creationism as science IS pretty funny. But the idea of America under the Christian version of Sharia Law is terrifying.

A good clraification on the issues, Chuck. All too often, all the various sides are talking passed each other, instead of getting to a workable solution.

Dorothy... my "solution" isn't "workable." At least, it's not for the folks who'd have to agree to it.

Kenny, by "you," I don't mean YOU.

Chuck, I wasn't trying to characterize atheists in general or even all who advocate for atheist rights, but some I have seen who seem to need a "cleansing ritual" such as "unbaptism" where they use a hair dryer to symbolically remove baptismal water -- that type of thing.

I agree the ongoing campaigns to pass theocratic laws cannot be quietly tolerated. I also have a BIG problem with the attempt to teach religious doctrine disguised as "science" in public schools. That is just 100% wrong.

Working these things out in a reasonable fashion might be the most workable and productive approach, but it's not as sexy or fun as whipping up extremist fervor.

I'm just an agnostic, but I have been told by a few what they will do with my type, when they get this country back to its Christian roots, which is kind of funny, since its roots were basically age of reason philosophy, and deism. Not so funny, though. . . Yeah, I will fight that, as long as I have a breath left in my body

An institution is not the same thing as "the church". A church is not the same thing as religion. Religion is not the same thing as a god. And a god is not the same thing as the incomprehensible Mystery, which the concept is supposed to represent.

I think it is silly to talk about a god existing or not existing, because "existence and non-existence" is but a pair of opposites, needed by the human psyche to form concepts. Whatever such a Mystery is or isn't - in my opinion - is not subject to the limitations of human thought.

Personally, I steer clear of religious institutions, primarily because they tend toward tribal identification, e.g., I am a christian, jew, muslim, etc. Jesus just said "I am", and that is a huge statement, in my view.

Some of it -- there is fighting for a cause, and then there's using a "cause" as an excuse to fight because one enjoys fighting.

True!

Perhaps I should have clarified by "freedom from religion" I simply meant freedom from having religion imposed upon citizens by the government.

re "atheism is a religion"
That is not a philosophical question or statement, it is purely a matter of how you define the word "religion." You can find definitions where that would be true, and others where it would not. And how we come to define words one way or another is in a utilitarian fashion via a long and winding road involving arbitrary happenstance rather than some profound analytic or logical or revelatory process.