Ongoing Replies to Mr. Jager
[should Mr. Jager modify or clarify a position, I will modify the following as I see fit.]
Mr. Jager starts with the things we agree on - church/state separation and our shared notion that people should be free to worship, believe or disbelieve anything they want without subsidizing the beliefs of others.
The first comment that caught my eye was:
"Many of the Christians I met do have a problem with my not believing in their God, and because I am not with them -- then I must be against them, "for whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9-40)"
This is an ironic use of the quote (which implies that Mr. Jager (who is "not against us") is "for us") - but I don't know if it is the Christians or Mr. Jager who used the quote. Since the quote is part of a passage that argues for inclusiveness (or at least not admonishing those who seek to spread the Word without appropriate credentials) - it is particularly inappropriate to invoke as an excuse for treating Mr. Jager as an enemy.
Mr. Jager goes on to mention that thousands of Christians believe in a Christian nation and takes issue with them. Not sure why this is in a response to me. Lots of people have ideas that I find foolish - the fact that many of them call themselves Christian should not be surprising in a nation where a large majority of people call themselves Christian. While there may be some evidence that Theists had some influence - there is precious little evidence for (and lots of evidence against) the notion that we should have a single religion. Further, while I would love to see our nation behave according to Christian principles (concern for justice worldwide, for the poor, for spirituality over materiality) - I see little evidence that our government has even considered such an attempt.
Mr. Jager allows that there are Christians who do not push their religion on others - but objects that too many are silent. Again, I fail to see how this is a response to my writings. I am speaking out. When I encounter others who support prayer in schools, vouchers for religious schools, etc. - I explain to them why I find these views inconsistent with both our Constitution and Christianity. There are many people and organizations who make it clear that they are both religious and against the involvement of the state. I agree with Mr. Jager that Christians should speak out and welcome any suggestions!
Mr. Jager again makes a point that has little to do with my comments:
"I would like to add, Christians who react with hatred toward non-believers, do so with the sincere belief they are carrying out Christ’s message."
and goes on to compare these "Christians" with the Taliban. I think I was clear that not only are Christians who react with hatred clearly unchristian but the evidence is overwhelming that these people have paid no attention to the New Testament. Even well-meaning Christians who worry about the eternal souls of others would do well to study the model that Christ outlined - there is no evidence that Christ encouraged pushing the message on those who choose not to hear.
"All I see is silence from the Christians
community whenever politicians promote the Christian God with public
funds."
I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Jager look farther. Other
atheist and separation sites link to Christian sites that promote
separation. Further, while I may disagree with the use of public funds to
promote religion - I respect that my church may not seek to be involved in the
debate. I would hope we would stand up against hateful behavior and
theologically unsound rationalizations. But it is not inconsistent to say
that churches should not be involved in pushing religion into public or secular
arenas and also say that churches should not participate in such debates at all.
(I see nothing in my church mission statement that says that it is important
that we fight against people who claim to be Christians who want the Ten
Commandments posted inside a school - my personal stand against such an issue
would be based in part on my Christian beliefs, but I do not see this as a
primarily religious issue)
"Religious people who carry out violence think of themselves as very spiritual." Mr Jager continues to confuse those who say they are something with those who actually are something when he responds to my statement that I have never met a spiritual person who was capable of violence. Yes, lots of people CLAIM to be spiritual or inspired by God when they do terrible things. My statement is not profound - it is virtually a definition. The people I have met who ARE spiritual (not claim to be) ARE so at peace that violence is inconceivable. I am told Mother Teresa exuded spirituality - I've met probably 20 people who were clearly spiritual. I do not make the claim for myself - but hope to move in that direction. Quoting Hitler in response to my comment clearly misses the point.
I concede that horrible things have been done under the name of religion and that people claiming to do God's will commit atrocities. However, people have done terrible things with the excuse/reason being "love" - does that mean we abandon love as a viable emotion and positive force? Of course not - it just means that we are aware that while the concept is generally used and applied in a positive fashion, humans can twist it into something evil. I'm not asking Mr. Jager to accept or embrace one or more religions - just to be more specific in his arguments. Religion and violence have often gone hand-in-hand, but the sign of true spirituality is a profound peace that is incompatible with violence.
Mr. Jager asserts that I have "missed the point made and taken exception to the comments made about religion working as a meme (an idea that spreads from one person to another in a culture) mind virus." - without specifying how or why. A link to a site advertising a book is the only help offered. I do understand Mr. Jager's use of the phrase mind virus. I just would extend its use to the (the small? large?) subset of atheists who KNOW there is no god and exhibit the same behaviors that Mr. Jager complains about (refusal to listen to reason, inability to see other points of view, belief that theirs is the only Truth). I suspect that spending too much time on websites that think that things like the "Church of the Pink Unicorn" are witty or profound has infected Mr. Jager with a virus that leads to the paragraph below.
Finally, we come to the crux of any disagreement I have with Mr. Jager - the following quote:
"The problem I see with religion is that it passes on information from generation to generation and believed as fact that does not make any sense. Virgin births, rising from the dead, living in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights, talking snakes, talking asses, talking to invisible beings (praying) and the sun standing still in the sky just does not make any sense -- yet it is believed by millions of Christians. People who talk to, or hear invisible beings talking to them are delusional and should be in a mental hospital, yet Christians who talk to, or hear invisible beings talk to them are sane? What is wrong with this picture?Millions of Christians constantly beg (pray) for special favors from their invisible friends. Yet, all that begging has not ended hunger, poverty, wars, or stopped any disasters (man made, or natural)."
Mr. Jager is entitled to not believe. It is understandable that when faced with hostile people attempting to change his point of view that he should respond in kind (ridicule, sarcasm, (deliberate?) misunderstanding). The first statement ignores people like myself - who rejected organized forms of religion and then have experiences that lead them to faith. Even Christians raised in the church are unlikely to truly believe without a personal experience with God and/or the observation that faith improves life.
The second statement is problematic on several levels. I won't defend literalists - though if you believe in a God that can create a universe, believing in any of the miraculous things discussed does not seem inconsistent or outrageous. I'd like to know how a person who is open to the notion of a Creator could find a virgin birth beyond the capability of that Creator - the argument makes sense only within the community of those who find the notion of a Creator impossible. On another level, Jesus uses parables to teach - clearly it is not inconsistent for a Christian to accept the wisdom inherent in various Bible passages without worrying about whether or not the recorded events took place exactly as described. (For example, there is evidence of a massive flood in OT lands that could have been reported as Noah's flood - do I care if the writer assumed the flood was world-wide?) On yet another level, Jesus makes it clear that being thought foolish is not such a bad thing - if the Bible offers me a better way of life, am I a fool to accept it because some of the passages are difficult?
The rest of the paragraph ignores my responses to Mr. Jager (if not on my site, in correspondence). Mr. Jager mistakes the nature of prayer - the notion of praying to manipulate God is absurd. God knows what I want and need without prayer. The answer to a prayer can be NO. Children make requests of their parents all the time - is the fact that not all requests are answered evidence that requesting is foolish? Don't children learn that reasonable and sincere requests from good motives are more likely to be answered than other requests? Prayer reminds us of our relationship with God and makes it more likely that we will see that our prayers have indeed been answered. Let's see - an activity that makes you a) think about what you really want and why, b) focuses you on opportunities to have an affect on the desired outcome, c) reminds of the benefits of humility, d) fosters appreciation for the good things in your life - boy, that sure sounds like a mentally unstable activity to me!
As for our relationship with our invisible friend(s) - few Christians I know admit to a direct encounter with God. Certainly the Bible implies that such interactions are either very infrequent (count the number of people in the Old Testament who directly experience God) or readily available ("wherever two or three are gathered in my name"). Most people experience God indirectly - some through nature, some through an unexpected moment of peace or clarity, some in the miracles of love and life, some in reflection. My observation is that few people sincerely seek or are open to an encounter with God. A friend of mine has been wrestling with spiritual issues and is tempted to explore religion. He reported crying out for God's help over and over with no answer. Then he told me, "I got an answer - He said, 'You are not ready yet... show me that you are willing to change.' " He now discounts the experience (in part because he is extremely unwilling to change!). Most "conversations" with God are one way - a form of prayer (see above). God responds differently to different people - some claim to "hear" a response, some experience a response in dreams, some see God's answer in something they observe. All of these can be explained by having a subconscious (which is fine for me - it was nice of God to supply a subconscious mind to help me with my questions!). Mr. Jager does not have to believe in the experiences of others. I have experienced God - Mr. Jager can choose to find that as credible as if I reported being aboard a UFO. Mr. Jager and I may well agree that most reports of being taken aboard a UFO are shams, dreams, hallucinations, whatever. We might agree that if taken aboard a UFO ourselves and having no other reasonable explanation - we might accept the experience. Where we may differ is that Mr. Jager might choose to believe there are no UFOs while I'm content to say I don't know.
A final observation - none of this (or any of my correspondence with Mr. Jager) is meant to change anyone's mind, to proselytize or to foster disagreement where none is needed. Most of my comments sprang from a sincere suggestion that Mr. Jager's more inflammatory remarks (like the paragraph I just dissected) are inconsistent with the stated goal of seeking church/state separation. I do not believe that ridiculing the beliefs of others helps promote the concept that we are each entitled to our own beliefs. I further believe that painting a distorted version of all Christianity based on the misbehavior of some Christians and on a misunderstanding of Christianity deserves a rebuttal - hopefully one that shows that reason and tolerance are not inconsistent with faith.
email me at doug@hardts.net