1.a. A declaration by a witness under oath, as that given before a court or deliberative body.
1.b. All such declarations, spoken or written, offered in a legal case or deliberative hearing.
2. Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof.
3. A public declaration regarding a religious experience.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/testimony

Obviously the first definition deals with legal process.  It is definitions two and three which concern me here.  While I think it is appropriate to have these separated, I think for many believers by giving some kind of public declaration regarding a religious experience, they are intending to give evidence in support of a fact or assertion: the act of making a personal expression of faith is, in and of itself, seen as an authoritative statement of truth.  Simpler said, because I’m willing to say I believe it, it must be true.

Testimony is highly subjective.  Religious truths are universal and objective, yet they are often reinforced by this subjective process.  Testimony is powerful when a group of like-minded (or like-experienced) individuals get together and share their stores.  However, what happens when someone shares a personal testimony of a different religious experience? That person’s personal experience no longer holds authority.  There appears to be an important aspect of conformity in testimony holding authority for a community.

A community where the use and power of testimony is clear and important is The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints.  I’m not singling out the Mormons for any reason other than the fact that testimony is vital to their daily religious experience and often done in a very accessible manner–one of the big reasons they are a strong and growing religion.  They provide strong and convincing evidence of how testimony can be used to express religious truths and to maintain a strong community.

Here is an short (5 minutes) and interesting example of testimony in action:

I find this video incredibly interesting.  Even without the well-done video use of audio and staged visuals for emotional responses, the testimony by the apostle is very powerful and surely convincing within the community.  It is actually testimony about testimony–the witness is saying I know this is true because these other people believed it so much they were willing to die for it. That’s serious and heart-moving business.

It’s also where I need to move from observation to criticism.  People die every day for their beliefs; people often die because of a difference of belief.  While it makes for good drama, it is a logical fallacy to assume that because someone is willing to die for a belief, that belief must be true.  This representation can work in a vacuum–assume only one truth, “our belief if the truth,” and it makes a lot of sense that someone would die for it.  But look at everyone who has died for their religious truth and at best you’ve got a really solid argument for religious pluralism.

This is ultimately the problem with testimony as it is often used today.  Personal experience is the cornerstone of the religious experience, but using personal experience as a singular expression of authority within a community setting can (and appears to usually) create an environment where the community becomes focused on patting itself on the back or defining/defending itself from society at large.

Looking at the big picture, it also makes a pretty good case for the very thing many religions try to fight against–the idea that each individual can believe what they want and it is a valid because it is their own experience.

So I first saw this amazingly offensive campaign in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miULdI-qocg

Then these billboards apparently started popping up.

I only bring this up in light of Dr. George Tiller’s murder. While I’m not going to touch either side of the abortion argument, I have a strong sense of hypocrisy when I look at the contradictions in messages.

Murder in the name of God is not something unknown.  In fact, not only does it happen, but it appears to be quite condoned in (“Western”) religious texts.

For example, in a form of genocide, as recounted in the “Old Testament”:

16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Deutoronomy 20:16-17

Or perhaps this individual encouter, as recounted in The Book of Mormon, in which Nephi murders Laban:

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

…

18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

1 Nephi 4:10-13, 18

The point here is that, going by religious texts, murder and killing is not something outside of the realm of (“Western”) God’s will.

So what kind of hypocrisy is it so show images and make statements which imply that someone who doesn’t believe in God will kill?  I’m much more concerned by someone who feels a moral obligation to kill.  Take, for example, the writings of another famous abortion doctor killer, the Reverend Paul Hill:

The scriptures teach that when the government requires sin of its people that they “… must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29b). No human government can remove the individual’s duty to keep each of the Ten Commandments: these duties are inalienable. When the government, thus, will not defend the people’s children—as required by the Sixth Commandment—this duty necessarily reverts to the people. You don’t need the government’s permission before defending your own or your neighbor’s child. If the people’s children will not be defended by the government, they must be defended by the people, or they will not be defended at all.

And if you want your fellow citizens, and the government, to recognize this duty, you must assert it.  The outrage is not that some people use the means necessary to defend the unborn, but that since most people deny that this duty exists the government will not perform it on the people’s behalf.

If you haven’t read it, I highly encourage you to take a moment and read his article on why, how, and the aftermath of shooting and killing Dr. John Britton and his escort, James Barrett: http://www.armyofgod.com/PHill_ShortShot.html

But, here, let’s look at the truth of it.  Being Christian, for example, doesn’t make anyone more or less likely to kill any more than being an atheist or agnostic does.  Individual people make individual decisions and justify them by whatever means they want.

I think we should put more emphasis, as individuals, on our own value on life than on defeating our enemies.

I have to admit that I am not a master in the theory or theology of the resurrection, so I write this post with a little trepidation and the disclaimer to do your own research if this gets you thinking.

This post is inspired by the recent discovery of a tablet which talks about the resurrection of a messiah after three days which has, I am to understand, been reasonably dated to before the time of the birth of Christ.  This tablet has apparently created an amazing about of debate and sparked some pretty hefty arguments.

What’s the big deal you might ask?  Much to my surprise, there are Christian apologists who apparently have an argument which suggests that one of the things which makes the resurrection of Christ story so compelling is that there are no other stories about a three day resurrection–that is to say, it is unique.  In scholarship, this is an extremely important point and, even though I was unaware people were making this argument, it is a very good argument to make–if there is no tradition to build on, why three days?  This seems like a rather strange thing for someone to make up, so it makes a lot of academic sense (with the appropriate level of pontification and long-winded arguments) that it likely had to happen.

Except that I do not think it is true.  I think there are a lot of examples in prior traditions.  It is no secret that the resurrection story itself is not unique.  The most obvious–and hotly contested–which comes to mind is Mithra.  I am not going to go into all of the (supposed) parallels of Mithra and Christ, but one of the important ones is that Mithra died and resurrected.  Some even claim that he rose three days later, but I do not have any support for this (anyone?).  I do also feel obliged to say that I think these two figures/traditions are so intermingled, it may be hard to ever understand how each influenced the other.

Anyways, the point at hand is that the resurrection story is not unique.  Mythical heroes have been getting resurrected in some way since there were myths to be told.  But what about the three days?  This is just not true.  There are resurrection stories in Egyptian mythology and the most prominent to the point is the story of Horus, who died and was resurrected three days later.  Another story is that of Attis, a story from Greek mythology, who was raised to life three days after being driven mad by a goddess who loved him and killing himself.  I am not making the broad comparison with these stories that others would–I am not saying that they are Christ-like stories or that Christianity stole them.  What I am doing, however, is pointing out that there is already evidence for other three-day resurrection stories.

A point I am even less knowledgeable in, but think should at least be brought up, is the potential significance of the number three.  In my limited knowledge, I have heard the number three used to suggest small numbers or a short time.  Keep in mind that in antiquity numbers were not always used as definite in story and myth.  For example, it has been suggested that the number of 144,000 people who will be saved was not meant to be taken literally, but it is such a big number that it is supposed to represent infinity.  That and something about the importance of twelve.  So the theory is that three days is not a literal three days, but simply “a short time.”  But, again, this is not really an area I know much about, however I wanted to bring it up because it might be relevant, but I admit it is pure conjecture on my part.

I guess I am rather dismayed over the hoopla around this tablet.  I think it is a very neat discovery and the more things we find like this, the better we can understand the people of that time–so it is not the discovery or the tablet itsel which I am bothered by, but it is the big deal around the three day resurrection of Christ being unique.  Sure, it makes a great academic argument, but I think it is simply a wrong argument.  The tablet is interesting and unique in that it potentially demonstrates the idea of a three day resurrection in Jewish thinking at the time (do not forget that apocalyptic stories were a dime a dozen back then and the coming of the Messiah was highly anticipated, especially under the heavy persecution over hundreds of years–for example, some thought the Persian king Cryus was the Messiah because he ended the Babylonian Diaspora), but I do not think this discovery changes anything–unless, of course, one has put faith only in the story of three day resurrection being historically unique.

I have some good friends who are very important to me and who I definitely do not spend enough time with. When I talk about community, I do not talk about individual friendships or groups of friends and associates. I am talking about being a part of something bigger than oneself–about having a network of people to invest in, to lean on, and to support. I’ve tried to find groups who share passions that I do: atheists, hockey fans/players, readers, etc… While I’ve met good people and even found groups to be a part of, I’ve never felt like I belong.

Some of that I attribute to my childhood. Until I got into the middle of my freshman year of high school, I moved every year or two–three times I moved states. Each time, I had to give up everything I knew–everyone I knew–and start over. I look at pride with being able to be self-sufficient and to find the strength I need to get through in myself, but I often wonder what it would be like to feel part of something bigger.

The other side of the coin, though, is that community often includes necessary exclusion–by definition, there are outsiders. Sometimes this is nominal and sometimes it is highly marginalizing. I have joked about this before, but I really do feel marginalized sometimes. A big issue is religion–not believing in God (and the lack of belief being important to me) makes me quite a pariah–and not being militant about it makes me feel distant from many, if not most, atheists.

There is something about atheism which breeds militancy. Someone very important to me recently said, on an unrelated but similar topic, “I don’t want to spend my life on the defensive.” I think that feeling plays into it–what better defense than an offense? I know I went through a period of militancy, but I just felt empty and hollow–I don’t hate religion, I don’t hate people who believe in God. I do hate ignorant group-think. I do hate blind thinking and perception. I do hate intolerance. But none of these are unique to religion or adherents.

Intolerance is something which can come along with community, especially community with boundaries of righteousness. And the greatest irony is that the stronger the walls that a community builds, the more they are at risk from isolating themselves from society, which in turns causes inward focus on the community, which in turn builds stronger walls…

One of the areas of religion I have studied is cults and one of the characteristics which people first identity as “cultish” is strong isolation. Give up your family, your friends, your past–they are tainted, we have the answer. That sort of stuff. But people are too heavy handed with their use of the word cult. It is, important I think, to understand how any strong community risks breeding this sentiment, especially from outsiders. The challenge is finding a way to balance community and interaction with the greater society.

I know I want to feel a part of a greater community–like I belong. But the honest truth is that I will never, ever give up my ability or interest in judging a person on his/her individual merit for a sense of belonging. I would rather be entirely alone and honest with myself and my relationships with others. I will never be a part of something which draws lines and says “you are in or you are out.” Those of you who know me or have been reading my writing for long enough know that among the top of my frustrations is either/or ideas. If my options are “all or nothing” then there is a serious problem with my options.

But I have to wonder–is there something acceptably human in the failure of the attempt to codify the divine ideal? Take the line of thinking: Humans are fallible (let’s assume some kind of personal, divine intention for this), God reveals truth to humans, humans attempt to interpret that truth, the interpretation becomes codified laws, those laws are not perfect–that seems to make some sense to me. Unless of course you choose to believe that divine inspiration is divinely perfect, and then you’re just screwed in explaining how things go wrong and why that is okay.

And how does individual interpretation of revelation factor in? Does the institution have divine inspiration and therefore represent the full and actual culmination of God’s will and desire? If the church is seem something as man made, and therefore fallible, I find my level of acceptance for problems in law and practice much higher. But, again, if the codified laws are divinely inspired, no way. Can the individual decide for him or herself what is right and wrong? How does human fallibility play a role in that interpretation?

Besides the fact that I believe the codified laws found in organized religion can simply be wrong, I also believe that at some point the religion becomes more about the worship of the law than about any kind of relationship with divinity. That, to me, is an ultimate tragedy. I find beauty, wonder, and grace in the world around me. If I were theistic, I would probably try to find divinity in the world, in my relationships with people, in life here and now. I’m sure it is a generalization and highly biased, but I feel like there is so much stagnation when the doctrine of law becomes more important than the doctrine of spirit.

http://www.mindonfire.com/2008/02/22/leaving-the-garden-isaacs-journey/ 

From the site:

“Leaving the Garden” is a weekly series in which we ask someone to reflect on their encounters with religion and uncertainty. Religion is filled with stories of faith; here we will collect narratives of unbelief. If you’d like to share your story of doubt, please leave a comment indicating your interest and I will contact you with guidelines.

So to Pope decides to visit an Italian University and give a speech.  This is not a churchy event, but is  the opening of the academic year and, in my opinion, a pretty big win for the University.  Say what you will about the Pope, it is a big deal for him to come give a speech, whether you agree or not, which, really, is what this story is about.

What is the response from the school, do you think?  Why for the students and faculty members to protest so loud that the Pope cancels the visit.

Here’s the story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pope16jan16,0,296931.story?coll=la-home-center

And some choice quotes:

More than 60 professors signed a letter to the public school’s rector saying the pope’s appearance, which had been scheduled for the opening of the academic year Thursday, was an affront to people of science and to the “secular” nature of the institution.

…

The students who led the protests celebrated their “victory for laicism,” whereas the rector of La Sapienza, Renato Guarini, said he was dismayed that a “small publicity-seeking minority” had managed to derail a papal visit to an institution founded, as it happens, by one of Benedict’s predecessors, Pope Boniface VIII — 700 years ago.

Let me start by getting my feelings out in the open:  screw you.

One of the challenges the students and faculty put forward is legitimate:  the Pope was going to give a speech but was not open to a question and answer session.  Although, if I were the Pope (Oh, how I dream about it!  Where’s my hat?!), I think I would be disinclined to play hardball with people so determined to hate me on principle that they’ll cancel my appearance anyways.

But, seriously, I believe strongly in the Academic mission and, question and answer session or not, I think that having the Pope come speak is valuable and useful part of that mission.  When people are critical of Universities as “liberal brain washing” institutes, it’s this kind of asshat actions that they are talking about.  I am not saying that people should not be vocal against the Pope, or whoever, if they feel like it–I am certainly do not support the Catholic church–but let the man talk!  And use it as an opportunity to hold more sessions about the Science vs. Religion debate, or on the issue of morality in atheism, or whatever you want!  But do not silence a voice because they say things you do not like.  That, to me, goes against the entire idea of Academia.  Especially when that voice is the selected leader of a major world religion.

I just get so angry when I read or see this kind of hypocricy.   This is one of those ultimate opportunities for education, learning, and growth.  I mean, if the Dali Lama came, would these same people have protested… or is he western and modern enough?  What if the next one isn’t so interested in constitutions and has takes a hard line.  Well, too bad, same guy, just reincarnated.  Haha!  You fail!

Seriously, though, I expected in Academia, of all places, for any civilized voice to have a platform and opportunity to speak.  It’s not a victory to celebrate–you did not win a skirmish in the great war against religion;  you did not even fight.  Walk around with all the pride and prejudice you want.  It is not for me.

Apparently not in New Jersey.

According to this Time article, a New Jersey couple has been denied the ability to adopt a child because they are not religious. Let us just cut to the chase–here is what the judge who ruled this says it is all about:

Inestimable Privilege. In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes’ right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes’ “high moral and ethical standards,” he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” . . . he continued, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.”

Here is the argument in a nutshell: 1) the law says no one shall be denied the ability to worship God, 2) the parents do not worship God, 3) therefore the child is being denied the ability to worship God.

First, if nothing else, I am simply offended at this, even if the logic was not flawed. If I may be frank, this judge can suck my left nut. I think this kind of rough-shod abuse of authority is absolutely asinine. The judge obviously is simply making a point and, I would guess, knows that this bullshit will never stand up over time. I am a big fan of the idea of the judiciary, but any asshat who uses the bench as a pulpit (or other type of soapbox) deserves to be stripped down and run out of town.

Now that is out of the way, let’s take a moment to look at the logic. First, to make this work, the judge is taking a narrow definition of the word “worship.” I.e. the law only protects the actual worship (positive), not lack there of. While there are those who would agree with him (and may even define the “freedom to worship however they like” to mean “the freedom to be Christian and, oh, by Christian, I mean my denomination”), legal precedence (and perhaps just using you head) tells us that “freedom to worship” has a much broader definition which happens to include the option of not doing so.

Second, the judge is appealing to all kinds of logical bullshit. You wouldn’t want to deprive the child of her right to make her own decision, would you? This poor, innocent, little child, depraved and left to shallow ignorance by her, while highly moral and ethical, adopted atheist parents. There’s no other way to put it. It’s bullshit.

Third, the logic is incomplete. The assumption being presented here is twofold: 1) parental influence necessarily defines a child’s ideological framework and 2) the parents would necessarily only present the child with the option of atheism. The judge tried to lighten the blow by talking about the “influence” of the parents, but he’s basically saying the above. Neither of these statements are axiomatic and it is wrong to simply present them as assumed fact.

Lastly, and most ironically, the flawed logic allows for some interesting thinking. I mean, if the judge is correct (and I’ll look to his own words, where he says “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit”), I would that we should not allow Catholics to adopt, as they parents may influence the child to believe in, of all things, Catholicism and not give the child the freedom to worship “as she sees fit.” For that matter, Jews are out too. In fact, maybe we shouldn’t let anyone adopt. Well, really, that’s a bit of a slippery slope, but seeing as the logic is gone from the judge’s argument already, might as well!

What I am concerned with here when I say “forced ideology” is when an individual accepts an ideology because they were told to do so, whether this is from a personal authority figure, such as a parent, or something or someone more systemic, such as the military commander for drafted soldiers.  This should be contrasted to an ideology one rationally accepts, based on knowledge and self-reflection.  There is, of course, a very grey area here which is not easy to define, but I am currently most interested in a strong understanding of forced ideology.

If a person does a “good” act based on a belief system which they have not rationally accepted, is the act really good?  Or is the person good/moral?  If a child makes a conscience effort to not lie on Christmas Eve for fear of not getting presents from Santa (assuming the child has something to gain from lieing), has the child done good?

My instinct tells me no, the act is not necessarily morally good.  One may argue that refraining from lieing is an objective moral good and the intent plays no part.  I, however, cannot agree with this.  Discarding the objective/subjective arguments of morality for another day, I cannot believe actions should be divorced so coldly from intent.

At issue for me is “good” actions which are more based on routine or dogma as opposed to rational choice or desire.  However, it seems that this thought has implications on “evil” actions as well.  If blind acceptance to an ideology devalues the “good” of an action, then it must devalue the “evil” of an action.
If giving to the poor because you are told to do so is not a morally good action, then what about a solider who kills because he is told to do so?  Or perhaps to make it even more stark, what about a man who rapes a virgin for purification?

I have too strong an emotional response to such evil deeds and too strong a belief in individual responsibility to accept that.  But I have to admit that I do feel that the good acts are devalued because of this.   Perhaps this is just faulty thinking on my part, but I think it simply leads to a better conclusion.

It is blind acceptance that is the problem.  I believe that blind acceptance is intellectually criminal.  Individuals must have a personal and reasoned system of beliefs or they do not really have a belief system.  One of the real tests of a person’s character is how they act compared to what they believe in.  Those with a void for a true belief system (or an understood belief system) often find themselves doing things or acting in ways contrary to their ideology.  Or they act accordingly to their ideology but are miserable in the process.

Blind acceptance is an individual choice.  You might even say (in fact, I do) that it is a moral choice.  Not accepting responsibility for your beliefs or your actions does not make those beliefs or actions justifiable.

It just makes them stupid.

Yet, another area where I find general fault with the slice of humanity I interact with (whether in person, in writing, or in observation) is the ideas of optimism and pessimism. I like to think of myself as a realist–I try my best to think of things as not the best or worst case scenarios. I, like anyone, cannot be perfect in this (but, perfection is just another black/white extreme, in my opinion). However, I am amazingly confronted by people who will label an action or a thought of mine as “optimistic” or “pessimistic” because it does not fit with a particular outcome or the personal view of the other person.

For example, if someone has a better expectation for the outcome of a situation and I take a moment to think about alternative outcomes, I have been told that I should not be pessimistic. Often, I get really taken back because I do not feel like I am being pessimistic, I am just trying to make sure I have a realistic expectation. When I sit down to think more about, I can generally think of ways that I could be truly pessimistic. This happens the other way too (“Oh, you’re just an optimist”). If I were to believe what people say in these situations, I would have to assume I am either manic-depressive or absolutely insane. I do not believe I am either of those things, so I assume there are other answers.

Let’s take a closer look at the ideas of optimism and pessimism. As technical terms, these words have some very specific meanings which in the usage in common vernacular seems to have oversimplified. In the study of religion, a religion or group which is identified as pessimistic does not believe that life is kind of crappy and people are pretty mean. It means that the religion identifies the world as a truly evil place, where the hearts of men are black by nature, and only by the intervention of a divine being–perhaps even the physical destruction of the world and people–can redemption can be had. You can assume something as similarly opposite for optimism.

Psychologically, this term also has a technical meaning–a pessimist is a person who truly believes in the worst. When one meets a true pessimist, one knows. These people are truly draining and truly unable to deal with the world–and truly rare. But I guess it is easier to say that someone who is depressed or generally surly is a “pessimist.”

What I am trying to figure out is if these are appropriate in relation to specific situations? Can someone be pessimistic about, say, their relationship but be optimistic, say, about their job? It seems like an easy thing to do right? Someone does not see something in the brightest of lights and so you say “Hey, don’t be such an pessimist!” Here is my problem, though. I think at some level, pessimism (or optimism) does have a meaning to people and it can influence how one interprets actions or situations. I think there is a difference between being “negative” and being a “pessimist.”

Moreover, I think there is a difference between those and beings realistic. “This might not work” (realism) is different than “this won’t work” (negative) is different than “this can never work” (pessimism). I worry that when “this might not work” is heard as “this can never work” because the listener equates anything which can be interpreted as negative with pessimism.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/16/doomsday.cult/index.html

What I find most interesting about this incident is that the leader is no longer with the group. He’s been arrestd and undergoing “psychiatric evaluation.” He told the group to hole up in their self built cave and they are doing it. One of the reasons I find this interest has to do what what a “cult” is and how it is formed. Or, rather, how hard it is to define those things. Like many things with religion, defining what makes something a cult is generally a subjective affair. Most often, a descriptive definition is used. I.e. a cult is something that has x, y, and z characteristics. For example, one might say that a cult does not have mainstream acceptance. However, there are people who call Mormonism a cult, yet it clearly has mass appeal. Even better, others, such as myself, would not agree that mainstream acceptance is a characteristic at all.

However, one that is widely adopted in this method of defining a cult is charismatic leadership. The Branch Dividians had David Koresh, Christianity had Paul, and the Insane Clown Posse have Violent J. One theory about containing/controlling cult behavior (if you would choose to do so) is that if you take out the leader, you take out the cult. I do not believe things are that black and white, but the theory is probably a good rule of thumb.

So, then, what kind of control did Kuznetsov have that his followers continue their practices and follow his commandments even after he is gone? They apparently communicating with him via letters but are mistrustful that he may be under the control of the authorities. It makes me think that a new leader has emerged with the remaining members that allows them to hold strong to their beliefs. If this is true, it poses an interesting twist to the idea of a charismatic leader’s role within a cult. It also shows one of the things at the root of cult behavior: a cult is sociological based “thing” which is guided by principles of the relationships between members more than the philosophical doctrine they supposedly cling to.

Even though I’ve studied it quite a bit, I have never understood why people argue that morals cannot be exclusive from a god / religion / whatever. The same-old “atheists have no morals” rhetoric.

Perhaps it is because those who express these feelings cannot control themselves?

I have to admit that the idea of people who cannot control themselves or urges being a part of something that gives enough structure to control those urges has great appeal to me… because hopefully those urges will be controlled. But I really feel that it needs to be something: a) substantative and b) not as bad or worse than the “urge.”

Also, one of the biggest problems is that the people who DO successful commit to something which makes their lives better or “beats the urge,” then often they try to push this on other people and/or when faces with an argument against the belief, they react poorly or violently. This is because the belief is more important in it’s ability to defeat the urge than in and of itself.

Take, for example, religion as the belief in this role. I’ve had great conversations with people who do not share the same religious beliefs as myself. Take, as another example, my doctor. My doctor is a very devout Christian and we have had very good discussions about religion. I don’t trust my life any less to him (…i hope) and we can have a very rational, friendly dialogue. But this is not always the case.

It is my theory that one of the greatest things in the way of pluralistic dialogue is the fact that many individuals belief is not based on the belief, in and of itself, but other factors, such as the belief acting as an agent against an urge or that “this is what the family believes so it’s what I believe.” The biggest problem with this is that when faced with challenges to the belief, even in casual dialogue, it’s hard for an individual to face disparate arguments.

It’s important to understand this. There are some people who you can be frank and open with, some you need to be more careful in how things are worded, and some who conversation may simply not be possible

However, with the rise of these heroes and apparently representatives of atheism, the issue of “what is” atheism is even more stark and apparent. Many Christians in America seem downright confused about what atheism is or is not and deservedly so, I ‘d have to say. Why? Because “atheism” describes a person who holds a single, particular view and does not describe the type of values a person holds. Some theologians would disagree with me here, but this is the point I have been making for years–you cannot judge an atheist by his/her stance on God but rather by his/her value (ethical) system.

So, as I read through atheist postings, I get so upset when I read atheists proclaiming “atheism means this or that.” Some (atheists) say atheists are modest, or ethical, or nice, or the like. And, as an atheist, I say this is absurd. Because, as I’ve said, being atheist has no bearing on these sorts of things. It may be a harder argument to make, but I believe it hurts our ability be relevant in conversations about morality if we say atheist = moral. Because if you can make the argument atheist = moral, you can make the argument atheist = immoral. Whereas, my argument is that atheist does not equal immoral NECESSARILY. This is an important distinction.

The are other dangers in this line of thinking as well. If one steps forward and makes blanket statements about, say, how atheists are moral people who just to be left alone and not force their views on anyone, this can be retorted with something smart-ass like “well, what about the Communists?” And, in the context of the original statement, the retort is appropriate. I’m an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. I and Stalin do not share the same values. Not only do I not want to make poor arguments, but I definitely don’t want to be lumped in with someone like Stalin.

I hate labels. I hate stereotypes. I had anything that predispositions a person towards something else, especially if it is another person. A person should be judged as a person, as an individual, not by his or her specific race, nationality, etc. This is not simply anti-descrimination rhetoric. This is the simple truth that all too often on a person-to-person level, people pre-judge because of meaningless and trite things.

Yesterday, I said that I might be labeled as a “compassionate atheist moderate conservative”. Two of those labels are almost ANTI labels. If you break it apart, it is really “compassionate atheist” and “moderate conservative”. In addition, we might add “atheist conservative”. You see, when someone announces they are a conservative, the stereotype associated with it is a radical religious “right-winger” … so it need to be quailified.. I am neither radical nor religious. But THAT needs qualifying, because the stereotype associated with atheist is huuuuuuge.

I can’t avoid acknowledging that they exist. At one point in my life, I tried. I wouldn’t even respond to certain words or phrases. But, that is simply ridiculous. Someone (or perhaps many people) once argued that it is human nature to categorize things. I spent a lot of energy arguing against that viewpoint… but I have perhaps a better answer to it now: who cares?

I mean really, so what if it is natural to categorize things, even humans based off of traits? What I care about is how an individual judges another individual. I don’t care if you think that all poor people are just lazy leeches… if you genuinely interact with poor people, you will find one (and more than one!) that is not. And if you think that all right people are insensitive, money-grubbers.. again, if you genuinely interact with rich people, you will find one (and more than one!) that is not.

So what it comes down to for me is not wether or not it is human nature to categorize things. What is comes down to is that it is a learned behavior to pre-judge an individual because of some lame categorization.

And a bad one at that.

My way of explaining this is that when someone goes to seminary today, he can say, “I’m not into Christology this year. I’m just into relating. After all, relating is what the ministry is all about, isn’t it? Ministry is about helping people relate to one another, isn’t it? So I want to take some more Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) courses.” And the seminary says, “Go ahead and do it. Right, get our head straight, and so on.” A kid can go to medical school and say, “I’m not into anatomy this year. I’m into relating. So I’d like to take a few more courses in psychology, because I need to know how to relate better to people.” The medical school then says, “Who in the hell do you think you are, kid? We’re not interested in your interests. You’re going to take anatomy. If you don’t like it, that’s though.”

Now what that shows you is that people believe incompetent physicians can hurt them. Therefore, people expect medical schools to hold their students responsible for the kind of training that’s necessary to be competent physicians. On the other hand, few people believe an incompetent minister can damage their salvation. [Emphasis added]. This helps you see why that what people want today is not salvation, but health. And that helps you see why the medical profession has, as a matter of fact, so much power over the church and her ministry. The medical establishment is the counter-salvation-promising group in our society today.

The Hauerwas Reader, 2001. Pg 611.

He makes some very interesting claims in these short paragraphs. As a person who does not believe in an after-life, this is nothing short of simple sense to me; that is, personally I place no stock in the salvation principles of a minister and, in fact, anything that a minister can do to better their personal and psychology skills to help people better deal with this life, the more I support it.

What about people of faith, however? Coming from a point of pure logic, it makes sense that a person would seek salvation as a means of prolonging one’s life. That is, mortality is a horrible and scary idea and anyone who truly faces the idea is scared witless. Which is one of the reasons that idea of salvation is important–to know and understand that “the end of life” is not the end. However, in this modern age, do people of faith see life, in today, as more important than salvation? Is the idea of salvation as believable, or worth working for?

One argument possible idea circumvents the above questions, but it deals with Christian Protestantism, or the influence therein. That is, when salvation became a personal issue, the priest/pastor/minister diminished in power. To clarify what some might argue, salvation may have always been important to the individual, but one of the changes made in the Protestant reformation is that salvation became something possible through an individual’s relationship with God, not because of a priest or the church.

My conversation obviously focuses on Christianity and leaves a glaring hole where other religions fit in, yet I am curious as to thoughts on this issue.

What do you think; do doctor’s have more (earthly, secular) power than ministers?