President Barack Obama personally did me and other atheists a big favor in his inaugural speech this week when he said:
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. (continued)
I’m not going to start a campaign to put signs on Northfield’s buses like they’re doing in the UK with the Atheist Bus project. But it has made me wonder (like I wondered back in May of 2007 with a How gay-friendly is Northfield? blog post): How atheist-friendly is Northfield?
Northfield is pretty tolerant in everything, whether you are a republican, athiest or gay.
I’d say that the town is pretty open to atheists/agnostics. While a great deal of our social and cultural life is centered on the churches, and a lot of Northfielders are serious churchgoers, I’ve never experienced any surprise or dismay from anyone who learns I am -- as Obama put it -- a “non-believer.” I’d wager that this is an effect of the town’s colleges, especially the eastern one.
Griff, I think the better, more pertinent question is: “How evangelical- or fundamentalist-friendly is Northfield?”
I’ve seen more groupthink and intolerance about and toward conservative Christians than I’ve observed toward any other group in town.
Tracy, do you have any examples?
My perception is that one is safer using phrases such as “non-believer” or “not religious.” The term “atheist” seems to have become synonymous with “anti-religion” to some people.
Anthony: I will give you an example: The “church ladies” who were praying for City government.
Kathy: I hope that “atheist” never becomes synonymous with “antitheist”. I encourage society to keep updating its terms, but not against the terms’ clear etymological roots. I am still annoyed that “decimate” changed meaning from “reduce by 1/10″ to “nearly annihilate”. The “a” in “atheist” simply means “without”.
Oh no you didn't. It's not a secret that Griff likes to rattle the hive. This topic is certainly volatile.
So, to start on a light note. Here's a favorite one liner. "Did you hear about the dyslexic atheist that believe there was no dog?"
David L: You cite the "church ladies" as an example of something. Could you say what they illustrate? Intolerance? Unfriendliness? Toward what?
Everyone: Seems to me that the question of whether Northfield is atheist -- or conservative Christian- or anything else-friendly depends sensitively on what "friendly" is taken to mean. If "friendliness" requires "general acceptance" then I'd say Northfield is an unfriendly place — and a good thing, too. If "friendliness" means tolerance of (or, better, respect for (or, even better, affirmation of (time to start digging out of parentheses))) difference, then I'd say we're tolerably friendly.
Perhaps the question is ultimately unknowable, in which case we're all agnostics.
Tim: I think the joke goes, “Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic with insomnia?” — “He stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog.”
Paul: The question is knowable. The answer may not be. Do we *believe* we have an answer? Guiding your pun back on topic, theism relates to belief, not knowledge. Theism is an affirmative belief, atheism is everyone without the affirmative belief. Gnosticism is the affirmative knowing, agnosticism is everything else. So someone who believes there is a god but does not know is a theistic agnostic. Someone who knows there is no god is a gnostic atheist. You can mix and match the terms accordingly, but in no case does “agnostic” have anything to do with belief. I mean, if someone asks, “Do you believe in god?”, and someone answers, “I’m an agnostic,” the answer has nothing to do with the question.
And this doesn’t begin to explain the antitheists.
Tracy- I agree with your perception. I think many comments last year regarding the “prayer ladies” pretty clearly defined an attitude that it is ok to believe in God but just don’t let it affect how you live or publicly display that faith. That is the antithesis of Christianity.
Paul Z.- Which definition of tolerance/intolerance are you using here? Is it the classical one where a person chooses to live with those ideas/persons they do not agree with? Or, is it the new definition where to tolerate something is to embrace it as having equal validity with every other idea/doctrine out there? Just wondering.
I thought the concern about the prayer ladies was merely one of preferential treatment. As in, “why is the administrator giving his office over to a private group for their meetings?” and, either: 1) a similar service should be available to any interested group, or 2) it should be available to none.
Personally, I’d love to have an office to play board games in during city council meetings.
And John, to your question, (speaking only for myself) I’m simply looking for “live and let live” tolerance. In Northfield, so far, I seem to have it.
John G:
You asked:
Which definition of tolerance/intolerance are you using here? Is it the classical one where a person chooses to live with those ideas/persons they do not agree with? Or, is it the new definition where to tolerate something is to embrace it as having equal validity with every other idea/doctrine out there? Just wondering.
It was Tracy, I think, who first mentioned what she sees as “intolerance” directed against conservative Christians, so perhaps her view is more at issue than mine. But, since you ask, I’d say tolerance means something like what you call the “classical” definition. Is it unclear?
I have *no* idea from where you conjured up your “new definition”. Whose new definition? Why on earth would you think I’d advocate such a far-fetched view?
Jerry,
Thanks for your notes on theism, gnosticism, and their a-versions. The distinction you draw between knowledge and belief is well taken, and one might wish (as I do) that public (or even academic) discourse were more precise in the matter. But, if Wikipedia is to be believed, “atheism” has been used since its invention, for better or worse, to mean either (i) an absence of belief in gods, or (ii) a belief in the nonexistence of gods.
Here’s a different question, not necessarily for Jerry: Accepting that knowledge and belief have different linguistic meanings, does the difference actually arise in practice? Are there many people, in other words, who would say they believe in God but don’t know whether He/She/Hse/ exists?
This if fun, but I digress. Griff’s original question was whether Northfield is friendly to atheists, and my question was about what various discussants mean by “friendly”. On this question I’m agnostic by any definition.
Patrick…
Thank you for your “Prayer Ladies” comment. It was never about what kind of religion was being discussed in the private office, and it was never even about religion, as David L. still seems to think. It was, as you state, all about the fact that they had an opportunity to gather in a private office--an opportunity that then needed to be granted to every group.
The exact same thing would have been brought before the council if a group of atheists were given the opportunity to gather in Roder’s office.
Personally I find it somewhat objectionable when atheists and agnostics are lumped together as in atheist/agnostic. It would seem to me that atheists and theists have more in common in that they are dead certain about the God issue even though they have opposing views. As an agnostic I find myself in awe of being animated matter, to feel a humble sense of gratitude of just being alive; of tasting this gift of life.
As far as the church ladies who felt compelled to pray for city government in city hall. Wasn’t there faith strong enough to pray from a differant location? Is there some sort of quantum mechanics involved with prayer that they have to be within a certain radius of the thing that is being prayed for? If there is some sort of godhead, surely the notion filled him with cosmic laughter.
Tom,
I think you are painting atheists with an overly broad brush there. Perhaps your confusion lies in the multiple meanings of the word “believe,” or perhaps in the distinction between “atheist” and “antitheist,” as described by Jerry, above.
I am essentially an atheist, but I do not claim to be certain about anything regarding “the God issue.” In short: I don’t know if there is a God or not, but when I have to make my best guess (that is, when I decide what I believe to be true based on the best evidence at hand), I say that it seems much more likely that there isn’t one.
There your go: atheist, as well as agnostic. Why do you find that objectionable?
Patrick, Not that it’s my business to go around classifying people but you would be, by my definition, an agnostic who suspects there is no god. Most of the atheists I have met seem absolutely certain of their disbelief. My concern is that I do not wished to be lumped together with people who feel they have cornered the market on TRUTH. I understand, I believe, where your coming from, for I too strongly doubt the existence of a godhead; then of course we can start another discussion about what he, she, or it is being referred to when we use the word god. No need to limit it to the traditional definitions coming out of the middle east.
David S. I agree that the “church ladies” issue was all about access to City property. But, there were many who tried to make it into a state/church issue.
Paul Z.- My “definition” of “new tolerance” is simply my own words I use to describe an attitude I perceive in various remarks made to me. It most often centers around me expressing my convictions concerning my interpretation of the Bible. When I say that I base my opinions on the “truth” of the Bible, it seems I am many times accused of being “intolerant.” I was reacting to your first question to David L. and this comment, “…If “friendliness” means tolerance of (or, better, respect for (or, even better, affirmation of…” in your 01/24/09 post. I’m glad to see you adhere to the traditional definition. I have found that the same term can mean different things to different people. That is why I asked. I’m sorry if I offended you in any way. I certainly did not mean to do so.
Pat- If you go back and review the comments posted on LGN concerning the “prayer ladies”, there was a strong opinion being expressed by many that this was a violation of the separation clause. I agree with you and David L. that the real issue was equal access.
I didn’t put a lot of thought into using the word ‘friendly’ in the title of the blog post. My thinking was just that it’s rare to hear people publicly stating their non-belief, even in private settings like parties. The more I do it, the more surprised I am at the frequency that people respond with ‘so am I!’ or some such.
I don’t ever hear disparaging remarks made about atheists here in Northfield like I sometimes do about Christian evangelicals, so Tracy’s question is a valid one.
But few atheists are ‘out’ about their non-belief or are the anti-theist type. I’ve wondered whether an ‘avowed atheist’ could get elected to city council, school board or other public office. Someone would likely raise the issue about them saying or not saying ‘one nation, under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance and the candidate’s campaign would likely go down in flames.
Paul: I disfavor Wiki on controversial subjects. Its ‘neutral point of view’ policy means that its articles stay in the middle-of-the-bell curve for popularity, and the ever-elusive truth is often found on the edges.
Using the popular and Wiki definitions, a person who is an atheist because there is no evidence of god, also called a ‘weak atheist’, is more accurately called an agnostic atheist. Compare that to a person who is an atheist who affirms there is no god, also called a ‘strong atheist’, is more accurately called a gnostic atheist.
Theist and atheist, gnostic and agnostic, are each true dichotomies. An “agnostic” is not a third option in the “theist/atheist” dichotomy, because as you know, dichotomies only ever get two options.
I enjoy your proposed pronoun “hse” but I recommend “zhe” which is much easier to pronounce.
Otherwise -- The legal issue of the Prayer Ladies was clearly an access issue, but more than the black letter law, having a government official give preferential treatment to a group of theists does cause a religious stink. In many professions, not only must one act ethically, but one must give the appearance of acting ethically. David L. could remind us that judges can’t give preferential treatment to lawyers (an absolute requirement), but judges are also ethically forbidden from fraternizing with lawyers because of the appearance of preferential treatment even if the judges are faithfully neutral in court. Someone in Roder’s position has the ethical responsibility to be neutral and to appear neutral. It’s fine to focus on the black letter law, but dismissing the appearance of favoritism unfairly invalidates the concerns of people who want a religion-neutral government.
Jerry,
Thanks for the linguistic commentary. As a committed word-freak, I think we agree on the importance of using language carefully. Like you, I don’t use Wikipedia as a source of opinions on hot-button questions, like whether god(s) exist(s), or even on word-usage choices. That’s why I cited Wikipedia not as an arbiter on the correctness of usage, but to the effect that “atheism” has long been used, for better or worse, somewhat flexibly.
(There’s an interesting discussion to be had on whether “correctness” of usage should be determined prescriptively or descriptively. I’m a heel-dragger. But now I’m risking thread drift, if not thread tsunami.)
Griff’s question about whether an avowed atheist could get elected is a good one. I suspect it wouldn’t be much of a problem in Northfield. But how about giving it a try, Griff?
Meanwhile, I kind of like one famous scientist’s description of himself as an “observant but non-believing” member of the C of E.
Northfield people might be tolerant, but it seems to me that many if not most people here have some kind religious affiliation. So, maybe atheists are tolerated, but it’s harder for them to find a fellow atheist to connect with?
I agree that Northfield is fairly non-believer-friendly, but I have my doubts that being a professed non-believer would have no effect on a candidate’s local electability. I don’t think there is any kind of electoral religious litmus test. It just seems that a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach is at work.
An interesting survey (TIME Poll: Survey on Faith and the Presidential Election By Pulsar Research & Consulting, May 10-13, 2007) found that 74% of Republicans nationwide would be less likely to support an atheist candidate; 50% of Democrats would be less likely to do so. (Atheists fared worse than Muslims in both cases.) I’m not suggesting that the numbers would be the same here in Northfield, but I am quite sure that an avowed atheist would have a harder time getting elected.
Ooooh, I just discovered an atheist’s route to electability in Northfield. Just say that one is a member of NAG (Northfield Atheists Group) without defining the acronym.
Just an anecdote: I was told some years ago by a lady wielding a wicked grocery cart in Econofoods one day, that neither Victor nor I could ever be elected in Northfield, because “EVERYONE KNOWS YOU DON”T GO TO CHURCH”!
Needless to say, I restrained myself, and did not throw her to the ground and put my foot on her throat….
As a Northfield newcomer, I don’t have an opinion whether Northfield is friendly to atheists, and I don’t have an opinion on the related question of whether it is more or less friendly to atheists than to conservative evangelicals. If is the case that atheists rank higher on the “friendly to” scale, I suggest that is more a cultural bias than a religious one based on the perception that atheism is more intellectual than evangelicalism, which is perceived as anti-intellectual.
Griff: There’s an organization, Atheists United, who gave its volunteers shirts designed with the term “Friendly Neighborhood Atheist”. With your suggestion, does that mean you’ll produce shirts that say “Friendly NAGger”?
I heard that years ago, atheists and gays could not get elected. Now it seems that gays can get elected. I don’t know of any atheists in public office, but I don’t keep tabs.
Many atheists use milder terms. One atheist friend of mine calls himself an agnostic so he can get dates. It seems most women he meets don’t like atheists. Some atheists call themselves “brights” (which I think is a horrible euphemism), others call themselves “freethinkers”. So perhaps atheists seeking public office can just call themselves “Bright” or another diluted term. Of course, that brings us back to your topic, about whether an atheist in Northfield can be elected, and Kiffi’s anecdote covers my assumption.
Griff- In response to yout comment dated 01/26, “…My thinking was just that it’s rare to hear people publicly stating their non-belief, even in private settings like parties…”, could it be that when you don’t believe there is anything to be had, then it isn’t worth sharing or trying to “convert” someone else to have nothing? When you believe you have something worth sharing, could it be that belief would be a motivation to share or “convert” someone else to your position? Then there are the people who are secure enough in their convictions that it really doesn’t matter to them what other people believe.
Kiffi- Thanks for the warning about the “wicked grocery cart(s)” at Econofoods. I’ll certainly be circumspect in my selection of one when I go there.
Griff: Re-reading Obama’s inagural speech, I think that your question about Northfield being atheist-friendly is not the kind of reaction Obama was seeking.
Will Healy had a great article in the Saturday paper. He stated that the great motto, “e pluribus unum” (out of many, one)stresses unum, not pluribus. Whether we are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or non-believers, courage, honesty, virtue, hard work, and all things good, will unite us, if we let those things unite us.
John: You might be surprised to learn that a great many atheists have a great deal to give and share. Dan Barker, formerly a preacher, wrote a book about his becoming an atheist and how liberating it was. I have learned a great deal about the transition from theist to atheist by reading his book, “Losing Faith in Faith.” (My religious upbringing was pretty mild so reading Barker’s story helped me understand how religious some theists are.)
Mark Smith, formerly a zealous member of the Church of Christ, says that his change to atheism has made him happier. He didn’t change to become happier, but because he lost faith — faith was no longer the answer to Biblical things that didn’t make sense to him. When he adopted atheism as his affirmative belief, he found that he had a lot less stress. Smith writes about the benefits of atheism in his slightly tongue-in-cheek article, “The Good News of Atheism”.
Ruth Green was a Christian who was suffering from a grave illness. While bed-ridden, she read the Bible cover-to-cover for the first time. Then she turned atheist and wrote “The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible.”
Barker, Smith, Green and many former theists believe that, all other things being equal, atheism leads to a better society than theism. They would tell you that atheism can lead to very good things and very bad things, just like theism, but atheism’s historical record is better.
On electability, I found this from Sam Harris’s web site:
“Only one of the 535 members of Congress, Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, publicly identifies as a nontheist, according to the Secular Coalition of America, a lobbying group based in Washington. [...] As both presidential candidates ardently court religious voters, atheist support is considered so controversial that several Democrats writing on the atheist blog Petty Larseny quipped that the best way to hurt the Republicans was to form a group called Atheists for McCain.”
Though well-intentioned, it is disingenuous to characterize the prayer-ladies issue as one of equal access as opposed to the mixing of church and state. The former explanation may be how the issue legally interpreted and ‘defused’ but not how it was received and debated when it first emerged.
There are plenty of offices in city hall to accommodate the various interest groups every other Monday night (including board games). I suppose quiet chanting could also occur in the council chamber itself (and, who knows, maybe prayers are said throughout the meetings by that person with the thousand-yard stare who always sits on the second chair from the left in the third row…(just kidding).
Point is, all this various sincere, pious and absolutely well-meaning activity would be a bit distracting, even disconcerting, were it to occur during public policy making sessions given our Constitution.
Norman: I think you made my point about the prayer ladies. The legal and political issues were all about equal access. There never was a church/state issue involved.
When it was intially received and debated, there were lots of people trying to make it into a church/state issue, or even a human rights issue. That misunderstanding could have had multiple roots, the worse being a hostility to religion in general.
Some commentators have suggested that society has become so sanitized of any theistic beliefs that a new religion has developed. It is a religion without creed, sancity, morality, or community. It is a religion where every man develops his or her own creed and morality.
One commentator has gone so far as to say that the Western world will not be able to institute Western ideas like democracy and liberty in Muslim countries until the Western world acknowledges that other cultures may be profoundly divine-centered, as opposed to profoundly science-centered. Only then can we enter into a dialogue about how best to serve those people.
For example, there is a strange irony in Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The man devoted his life to God. I have a feeling that he would have been adamantly opposed to the idea that he, rather than God, should be worshipped on a “holi-day”.
Norm: There are the hard rules that gov’t must abide by and there is keeping its people happy above and beyond the rules. I think the people upset with what happened are arguing that the gov’t is not keeping its people happy, but they are using legal buzzwords to sound intimidating when the buzzwords don’t apply. This causes some confusion and it creates an easy excuse for gov’t and others to ignore the people who are upset.
Person A: Roder violated the separation of church and state.
Person B: Actually he didn’t, so I’m going to ignore the reason why you’re upset.
I think that for Person A to be noticed, he or she should not use the legal buzzwords. From what I heard from the city council meeting where a lady at the open mic complained about this event, she used the buzzwords and was immediately discredited by the council from the legal perspective. Our city government should not have ignored her complaint, but because (I believe) they were not offended about what happened, they assumed the role of Person B.
While I have great affinity for your position, I fear it’s easy for the majority of people to ignore it.
David L: I think you bend the term “worship” too far when saying that people worship MLK.
I also recommend that you take a secular ethics class. This statement, “Some commentators have suggested that society has become so sanitized of any theistic beliefs that a new religion has developed. It is a religion without creed, sancity, morality, or community. It is a religion where every man develops his or her own creed and morality.” overlooks (1) secular ethics, and (2) how the emergence of secular ethics has brought morality to Christianity, e.g., there are no more stonings, witch burnings, inquisitions, etc., because secular society grew intolerant of these once Christian traditions.
There is also a question centering on whether freedom OF religion was intended by the framers of the Constitution to also include freedom FROM religion.
The term I have most often (and in my opinion, most accurately) heard to describe atheists/agnostics/non-believers is “freethinkers.”
David L: Your statement:” It is a religion without creed, sanctity,morality or community. It is a religion where every man develops his or her own creed or morality” is so devoid of any tolerance for differing realms of thought, that for a moment I thought I was on the NFNews site, where every item devolves into irrational personal attack.
How do you feel comfortable judging each person’s belief system?
Is not the Catholic’s belief system different from the Presbyterians?
How are you injured by anyone’s differing belief system, and if it does not affect you personally, how can you question its authenticity or even right to exist?
You are sounding like a person who thinks they have a direct, personal, unassailable and verifiable line to “God”, and that you will direct what others think , believe, and that you have the right to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of the beliefs of others.
Sorry if you find me “rude” , but I find your comments intolerant, arrogant, AND rude, BEYOND “belief”.
Vicki: I have met one Christian freethinker. That makes at least one out of two billion.
I have met many atheists who are not freethinkers, those who don’t question authority or their own assumptions.
David L,
You wrote,
Are these your suggestions, or just things that you seem to remember hearing someone say once?
Whoever suggested these things doesn’t seem to have a very useful definition of “religion.”
At the very least, a religion is commonly understood to:
1) have a spiritual aspect, and
2) be a collective activity.
Your assertion that:
seems to violate #2.
This “it” of yours, whatever it is, is clearly not a religion. Why not call it “peaceful coexistence,” or even “civility”?
(Assuming of course, that the participants in this “it” are not violating those laws required for maintaining public order, and are not causing harm to others.)
p.s. Griff: that’s a very nice “Live Comment Preview” feature that you’ve added.
Patrick: Incidentally, Christianity is an excellent example of “a religion where every man develops his or her own creed and morality.” According to the 1994 Catholic Encyclopedia, there are in excess of 20,000 denominations of Christianity. If David believes that Christianity today is (a) unchanged from Day One, or (b) unified under common creeds and morals, he is alone in his belief.
Pat- Just for perspective, this is the way I differentiate “religion” from “Christianity.” To me, and those I relate to, “religion” describes mans’ attempts to please God or “work” the person’s way into heaven. We esteem this as futile, based on our interpretation of various scriptures.
We believe Christianity, on the other hand, is defined as a relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ (hence, “Christ”ianity). Out of this relationship, we see fruit, in a person’s life changes and behavior, as something worked by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is not passive but an active response to the revelation of His truth in our lives.
Kiffi- Just my opinion on tolerance and “religions”. Both Islam and Christianity are mono-theistic religions, if you may. This being the case, they are mutually intolerant of polytheistic religions. They are also mutually intolerant of religions of other creeds, hence, each other. We both trace our origin to the same God, but through different lineages. If you use “tolerance” as a litmus test of credibility of a religion, you miss the whole point of the religion. All religions, aside from Hinduism and some other Eastern mysticisms, basically take the position that they are the only true way. Each believer has to sort this out for themselves. There are experiential evidences to support some claims, but not all. This is where faith comes in, as it is written: faith is the substance of things unseen. Therefore, I cannot say I am a follower of Jesus and a follower of Mohammad, even though they both trace their roots to the same God and father of faith, Abram, and have very similar tennets.
Jerry- I’m not sure your estimation of Christianity is complete. There is a difference between “developing” an individual “creed or morality” or choosing how to interpret or apply an existing “creed or morality” as presented in the Bible. The difference is subtle but important. The lie presented in Genesis 1 is that we can “become as God, determining good and evil.” The better translation of the Hebrew text here is “determining” rather than “knowing” good and evil. It is taking moral judgement into our own hands, rather than leaving it’s source with God, that we get ourselves into trouble.
Paul F.- Just in case you are lurking, you know that I receive the Bible as the inspired word of God rather than just a collection of various men’s observations, so I am aware of the limb I am going out on in my post.
John,
The various voices on this thread seem to be using many of the same words, but to various purposes, and with very different meanings.
Your definition of religion seems a fairly specialized one. How many people do you consider to be Christians? And what would you call all those other self-described Christians?
Perhaps Jerry is right when he suggests that Christianity is “a religion where every man develops his or her own creed and morality.” Apparently, David L’s “it” afflicts not only the secular, but also believers.
John G:
You wrote (addressing Kiffi, who can certainly e-speak for herself, but I’d like to respond):
Here’s a good example of where definitions matter to clear conversation. By “tolerance” you seem to mean “agreement”. By that definition, indeed, polytheists don’t “tolerate” monotheists who don’t “tolerate” atheists and so on. But a more standard definition of “tolerance” would be something like “willingness to live amicably with difference” or just “live and let live”.
Then you said:
What you say may be correct as a general proposition, but I haven’t heard anybody using tolerance as a “litmus test of credibility of a religion”, so the point seems moot. Seems to me that a religion’s credibility or lack thereof is inherent in the religion itself, not in what its devotees do or don’t tolerate.
I agree, and I think it’s just fine for people to be committed to their own religions, and — respectfully — to welcome and try to convince others to sign up (I’m a missionary kid) for one religion instead of another, just as we go freely door to door to harangue our neighbors on political subjects. But both can be done tolerantly and respectfully, and with awareness that one might be mistaken.
Paul Z,
You wrote,
Amen.
Paul Z.- In my post, I was responding to Kiffi’s remark to David L. specifically, “…Sorry if you find me “rude” , but I find your comments intolerant, arrogant, AND rude, BEYOND “belief”…” It just seemed to me that this statement was taking David to task for saying he thought his way was right. I wholeheartedly agree that we should be able to tolerate other religions. We have been doing it peacefully and without coercion in this country for a couple hundred years. This trait is not characteristic of many other cultures in the world, unfortunately, and I think we are very blessed to have this freedom. I have heard this gospel of tolerance from Kiffi many times before in her posts, so I felt I could address it here. Perhaps I have judged her wrongly, so I am open to her response. Your comment, “…Seems to me that a religion’s credibility or lack thereof is inherent in the religion itself, not in what its devotees do or don’t tolerate…” is exactly what I believe, also. I echo Pat’s “Amen!”
Pat- To answer your questions, “…Your definition of religion seems a fairly specialized one. How many people do you consider to be Christians? And what would you call all those other self-described Christians?…”, fortunately, this is not my responsibility. There is a scripture, which I can only paraphrase here, in which Jesus is telling His disciples, “…many will come to me in that day and say, ‘Lord! Lord!’, but I will say to them, ‘Depart from me you lawless ones (workers of iniquity), for I never knew you.’” There is another scripture in which He says that His sheep know his voice. This speaks of relationship, in my understanding, and that is how I try to apply it in my own life, and how I counsel others. He also says that we will “know them by their fruits,” so it appears there is some responsibility on our part to act according to His direction. We will each give acount for our own deeds. Hope you don’t feel I sidestepped your questions, but we can go into greater depth over coffee.
John: Not only do different monotheistic religions oppose each other, don’t forget that they oppose themselves. The Catholics and Protestants have a bloody history, as do the Shi’ites and Sunnis.
On knowing vs. determining good and evil, it sounds like you’re saying that all secular laws with a counterpart in the Bible are just, and all secular laws not in the Bible are either not just or perhaps anti-god. Is that correct? (I don’t mean contractual or regulatory laws, but moral laws, like the law against murder.)
Because I try to be sensitive to definitions, in this sentence, “The better translation of the Hebrew text here is” do you mean “translation” or “interpretation”?