A Letter To Your Beautiful Heart

“Muslims are the youngest sibling in the Semitic family of religions, and we typically get no respect from the older kids - Judaism and Christianity. That our older sisters didn’t stick our pictures in the family scrapbook doesn’t make us less related, sweetheart. And our stories are no less legit just because we have a different angle on family history. Want to know what happened to Hagar after she fades from the Bible story of Abraham and Sarah? Sit, have coffee, we’ll talk.”

A certain Middle Eastern religion is much maligned in this country. Full of veils and mystery, it is widely seen as sexist. Often violent, sometimes manipulated by demagogues, it yet has sweetness at the core, and many people are turning to it in their search for meaning.

I’m talking about Christianity.

This Muslim squirms whenever secular friends - tolerant toward believers in Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Native American spirituality - dismiss Christians with snorts of contempt. “It’s because the Christian right wants to take over this country,” they protest.

That may be, but it doesn’t justify trashing the religion and its spectrum of believers. Christianity has inspired Americans to the politics of abolition and civil rights, as well as to heinous acts. Christian values have motivated the Ku Klux Klan to burn houses, and Jimmy Carter to build them. You can’t say that when Christianity informs politics, only bad things happen.

This may strike you as odd coming from a Muslim. My dears, it’s true: People of faith do not signify the apocalypse for democracy. And (here comes the Muslim agenda) that goes for believing Muslims as much as for other religious folk. Muslims, in a very specific way, are not strangers in your midst. We are kin. Not just kin in the lovely way that all humans are. We carry pieces of your family story.

I got a phone call one evening from a friend who is a lovable gossip in my home town. “Have you read today’s paper?” she wanted to know. A letter-writing curmudgeon had mouthed off about how U.S. Muslims ought to be expelled, as worthless, dangerous and un-American. “What are we going to do?” she said. We’d worked together on nonpork lunch options for our kids in school - we share that dietary law, as she’s Jewish.

Anyhow, I invited the letter-writer to coffee. Walter declined, but we started writing to each other, his letters bearing a Purple Heart address label; he had been wounded in World War II. Walter was the crotchety, racist American great-uncle I never had. I sent him family photos, as you do to even an ornery relative; he replied that he guessed I was Syria’s loss, America’s gain.

“Huh?” I said.

“Why, you’re a Syrian beauty queen,” the old charmer said.

One day, I found a plastic baggie of asparagus tied to my doorknob. Mystified by this American vegetable, not one I cooked in my heritage cuisine, I brought it in - then noticed, sticking to it, the little address label with the Purple Heart. “Saute in butter,” Walter advised. He made me promise to come to the cemetery on Veterans Day; I did.

A year later, I get a knock at my door. It’s Walter. “La ilaha illa allah!” he says, before “hello.” “You and I worship the same God. I know that now.” He limps into my living room, and we finally sit down to coffee.

Muslims are the youngest sibling in the Semitic family of religions, and we typically get no respect from the older kids - Judaism and Christianity. That our older sisters didn’t stick our pictures in the family scrapbook doesn’t make us less related, sweetheart. And our stories are no less legit just because we have a different angle on family history. Want to know what happened to Hagar after she fades from the Bible story of Abraham and Sarah? Sit, have coffee, we’ll talk.

My cousin was president of a national student group, and reporters constantly ask her whether Muslim youth turn to religion to reject their American identity. She grew up in the South, with friends who went to Bible camp in the summer. “Would you ask a Baptist that question?” she says, smoothing her head veil.

Does wearing a veil make you less American than wearing a yarmulke or a Mennonite bonnet? Does reading the Koran (even if it’s not Thomas Jefferson’s copy) make you less American than reading the Bible? If deploring U.S. foreign policy is un-American, then half the population is guilty. What else you got? Name your favorite symbol of Islamic difference, and I’ll name other Americans who share it. The guy with all the wives on HBO’s “Big Love,” does anyone question his Americanness?

Assimilation is overrated. And it’s not what minority religions do in the United States. Did Irish-Catholics stop being Catholic when they arrived generations ago? People once believed that devout Catholics and Orthodox Jews could never be “true Americans.” Today, I receive e-mails with solemn lists of why Muslims, “according to their own faith,” can’t possibly be “loyal Americans.” The work of nut jobs. Yet purportedly sane people in Washington seem to think it’s a valid question.

The Muslim spectrum contains many complex identities, from lapsed to ultra-orthodox. There’s this wisdom going around that only the liberal sort are worthy of existence. No, my dears. Conservative Muslims have a right to breathe the air. Being devout, even if it means prostration prayer at airports, is not a criminal offense. And those stubborn unassimilated types may have a critique of the American social fabric that you should hear.

I grew up Islamist. That’s right, not only conservative Muslim, but full-blown, caliphate-loving Islamist, among folk who take core Islamic values and put them to work in education and politics, much like evangelical Christians. One of the things about the United States that delighted my parents, and many Islamist immigrants, is that here, through patient daily jihad, they could actually teach their children Islam - as opposed to motley customs that pass for Islam in the Old Countries.

Look, Islam never really “took” in the Arab world. The egalitarianism that the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) preached, for example, never much budged Arab tribalism. The Koran’s sexual ethic, enjoining chaste behavior and personal responsibility toward God on men and women both, not tribal ownership of women’s sexuality, never uprooted the sexual double standard or the pagan honor code. Honor killing, as a recent fatwa by al-Azhar University’s mufti reminds believers, is a pagan rite violating Islamic principles. Here in the United States, religious Muslims can practice Islam without those entrenched codes.

They are also critical of casual sex and immodesty. Such conservative Muslim criticism of mainstream American culture isn’t new in American discourse. “Unlike Muslims, we Americans believe in women’s equality,” someone will object. Really, that’s an essential American trait? Tell that to citizens who struggle for gender justice. Muslims, pious ones, even, will tell you that they believe in it, too, and are no more sexist than you. Your sexism just takes forms so familiar that they’re invisible; holding doors open for women doesn’t seem nearly as sexist as walking protectively ahead of them.

Other American values are easily in synch with the Islam of the devout. Observant Muslims have long seen meritocracy, consultation of the people by the government and the idea that hard work should trump family name as refreshing affirmations of Islamic values. “America is Islam, without the Muslim ‘brand name,’ ” goes a refrain from the pulpit of immigrant mosques. Usually followed by, “The Old Countries are Muslim in name, without Islamic values.”

This is the Mayflower Compact of these new Pilgrims. That analogy may not sit well with African-Americans, whose ancestors didn’t come voluntarily, and with Native Americans, because it links newcomers to those who devastated their lands. Nevertheless, this is one way immigrant Muslims see themselves in this land: as part of a long caravan of faiths seeking to build the beloved community. This American narrative merges with the Muslim concept of hijrah - emigration for the sake of worshiping God freely.

“How green is America!” a visiting relative of mine exclaimed upon seeing the rolling hills of Virginia. The busy-busy metropolis had not appealed to him. I hoped to dislodge his stereotype of American life as fast, crass and dehumanizing. When my husband and I moved to a small Southern city and took him to the farmers market, he saw it - the other America, past the glitz, where folks have time for one another, as they do in the Arab world. “What church do you go to?” is the watchword in this America. Like the Arab query “What family?” it means, “Where do you fit in?”

We fit right in to your sweet bosom. Christianity and Islam have the genetic structure of siblings. “Allah” is in the Bible. “Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?” the New Testament has Jesus (peace be upon him) saying on the cross. “Eloi,” “Elohim” of the Hebrew Bible and “Allah” are all derived from the same root word for “God.”

When I discovered that fixed-time prayer was an early Christian rite, that Christians and Jews once practiced prostration, like Muslim prostration in our five daily salat, it was like recognizing my nose on someone’s face in a photograph, then learning that the picture was of my great-grandmother. Joy!

Doctrinal differences abound, and each faith has its sacraments. Exploring these distinctions should be a source of delight, not of one-upmanship. In difference lie blessing and abundance. The Gospels detail many moments in Christ’s life, but for Mary’s own feelings in labor, you’ll want a glimpse of the Koran - and of Muslim hearts where the scene lives.

Pious Christian and Jewish values are not inherently in conflict with American civic life, as secular folk tend to forget. Devout immigrant Muslims don’t belong? That ship has sailed. Myles Muhammad Standish and Harriet Halima Tubman are here. Not as strangers out of place, either. This is a letter to your beautiful heart: We are your blood.

Mohja Kahf is the author of the novel “The Girl in the Tangerine Scarf.” Her e-mail address is DamasceneQueen@yahoo.com.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

26 Comments so far

Io Q. Lellity July 27th, 2007 12:28 pm

No, the three middle eastern religions should have stayed in the place where they were first developed. They came here by way of genocide, and now they are pushing for the apocalypse. Religious “values” (wrong term) are in conflict with secular principals of equality; they are in religion-dominated states like america, isreal, and islamic countries, and they always were.

peoplefirst July 27th, 2007 12:33 pm

I was expecting a letter to Barbara Bush about her
son, but I guess that would have been a letter to a
beautiful “mind” - appropriate since they have no
heart to write to and even though the son seems
mindless.

Samski July 27th, 2007 2:10 pm

“People of faith do not signify the apocalypse for democracy”

Surely she means moderate people of faith, who also keep their unfounded beliefs from discolouring rational discourse.

I couldn’t get past the third condescending ‘my dears…’ before I had to stop reading and give up my search for some evidence of above assertion.

jareilly July 27th, 2007 2:29 pm

“Islam never really took in the Arab world”? Really? Then maybe the Pre-Mohammed Arab worldview has completely taken Islam. You cannot find Mohammed commanding honor killings, female genital mutilation, “ownership” of wives and female children, or for that matter suicide bombings, killing of non-combatants, or summary murder of non-Moslems in the Koran. In fact the veil itself is not required by the Koran. Mohammed “secluded” his wives to stop them from bickering. He called upon Muslims to be modest but not to cover women’s body’s from head to foot or beat them with sticks if the coverings blow off in a breeze.

But Muslims do not reject these practises. There are Christian groups that publicly oppose the Christian Right and Jewish groups that publicly oppose the Jewish Right and oppose the government of Israel. Where are the Muslim groups doing the same? Where are the Muslim women active against child marriage, genital mutilation, and honor killings, especially here in the US where the author says Muslims are free to really practice Islam?

Another thing - nobody on the Left advocates denying devout Christians, Jews or Muslims their basic rights. The situation is just the opposite. The Religious Right (of all faiths) seeks to impose an authoritarian, absolutist society on secularists by means of an assault on law, culture, reason and in some cases life and property. To oppose this assault is not to deny its advocates their rights. It’s not the same thing as discrimination, bigotry or prejudice.

If I were the author I would try as she does, to get along with my Christian neighbors at the farmer’s market, but I’d keep a weather eye out and a bag packed. Some of those same friendly, Christian neighbors would no doubt rat her out in flash if the big crack down came and their TV preachers supported it.

vinlander July 27th, 2007 3:31 pm

May Odin forgive her this misbelief.

namvet67 July 27th, 2007 4:02 pm

Grown people fighting over fairy tales. That’s what religious wars are and always have been. Muslims today are the Native American Indians. They are in the way of the spreading of god’s word. Love your neighbor but shoot him if he prays to a different god.
Hoa binh

elmysterio July 27th, 2007 4:10 pm

Not all Christians are ignorant morons… just like not all Muslims are terrorists. So called “progressives” seem to lump all religious types into the same “Rabid Right Christians”. That’s certainly not the case. That’s the one thing that really bugs me about the “left”… their self-righteousness. Hell, if you read the Gospels in the bible or what the Prophet says in the quoran, and put them into the political spectrum, they’re quite left of center… it’s the fact that the truth has been twisted and corrupted by evil humans for their own nefarious purposes.

Samski: Her “my dears” is not condesending… it’s sweet. Like an old grandmother telling a story. It’s also a cultural thing… something you stupid americans don’t understand.

KaneJeeves July 27th, 2007 4:42 pm

“Christian values have motivated the Ku Klux Klan to burn houses, and Jimmy Carter to build them.” This tells me those values are useless. If a doctor said ‘take this medicine, it killed my first patient but cured my second’ any sane person would go to another doctor.

vinlander July 27th, 2007 4:55 pm

Believe whatever makes you happy, but don’t ask me to respect something that is, to my way of thinking, illogical claptrap merely because you say it’s your religion. People don’t rise from the dead, they don’t ascend into heaven on winged horses, burning bushes don’t talk, water doesn’t turn into wine (but I’ve been to parties where wine does turn into water as the evening wears on). These things aren’t miracles; someone’s either lying or hallucinating. Personally, I prefer those who hallucinate because they tend to keep their hands off my wallet.

Now, if you want to discuss religious ideas as philosophy, that is another matter entirely. Jesus of Nazareth and Mohammed, peace be unto them both, taught a great many things wiser than those that their followers practice. Their teachings even have a certain internal consistency and logic.

But the counter-factual myths and legends that abound in religion can only be taken as metaphor, and even then, some are just plain wrong. So, believe what you want, but don’t threaten me if I have the temerity to say out loud that what you believe is silly. After all, you have the same right to mock me (and if you got to know me, you’d have more ammunition than I).

TextGuru July 27th, 2007 6:03 pm

The importance of a secular state, and of secularism, is to remove religious belief and worldview from the government of a religiously pluralist society. Because democracy is partially based on government by consensus, it follows that imposing religious requirements in a religiously plural society could never represent the consensus view. Furthermore, when the government is based on egalitarian values — giving equal power to each individual based on ‘inalienable rights,’ religious requirements cannot, by their nature, treat all individuals equally. Therefore, laws and rulings should not prescribe or proscribe any religion or religious activity in a truly secular state. Laws and rulings should be based on commonly-held notions of justice, equality, and respect for human life.

However, that does not eliminate the influence of the devotion of individuals as they act in the public sphere. It is possible to be a good governor because you are also a devout Muslim. However, the point about a secular state is that you are not required to be a good Muslim to be a good governor, or to be a governor at all.

Secularism protects all of us from injustice and inequality. It is essential that we uphold the value of a secular state, but that doesn’t mean that we have the obligation to demean or glorify any one religion just because it is a religion. In our public discourse, we should be respectful as we tell the truth.

KEM PATRICK July 27th, 2007 6:11 pm

Where is siouxrose?

abuelito July 27th, 2007 7:37 pm

wouldn’t it be easier to just toss all those fairy tale “religions” with their endless apologies and excuses and attempts to demonstrate that they “really” aren’t what they so obviously are? They all admit they worship the loony jealous vengeful punishing god of Abraham- how can anyone be expected to take them seriously? let’s try being humans for a while and see what happens.

liberata July 27th, 2007 8:54 pm

>>Look, Islam never really “took” in the Arab world.

Please do not be discourged, dear Mohja. Christianity is very much a work in progress too. And look how many centuries we’ve supposedly been at it!

As a famous Christian once said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

In the Light.

KaneJeeves July 27th, 2007 10:17 pm

Christianity’s been at it for more than 2000 years and it still can’t stop priests from abusing boys. In any other context we’d call that complete and utter failure. Pitiful.

neomunk July 28th, 2007 1:24 am

LOL

The atheists are out rabid today.

Listen up, I have a few questions for all you Ivory Tower fanatical Atheists out there.

If your ’secular’ worldview is so sanitary, clean, logical and innocent, tell me what religion is responsible for such things as reckless industrialization, corporitization, and such nice trinkets like the atomic, nuclear and chemical weapons being (to this day) developed and used?

No, seems to me that those things would come from a worldview without any concept of ’soul’.

Or maybe, it’s something else entirely, as are all the bad bad things you keep wagging your finger towards various religions about… Like the fact that some people will grasp at any sliver of power they can get their hands on and twist it to their own selfish ends. Quite easy to do with religion (why is that anyways, if it’s so obviously foolish, oh secularists?) and it has been done. Very bad things have happened in the name of religion.

Now, tell me, without snickering, that no atrocities have ever been committed in the name of secular ‘progress’ ala ’science’. No, I didn’t think you could. Watch the movie ‘Conspiracy’ some time about a roomful of high ranking Nazis discussing the Jewish ‘problem’. Bunch of religious fanatics? No, cold hard logic was their game.

Your whining about the foolishness of other peoples beliefs (especially in light of the fact that we both know you don’t have a full and working model of reality to offer instead) is unimpressive to say the least. it comes out sounding like an argument between a Hindu child and a Christian child… “THIS is true because my book says so.” “Nuh UH! My book says THIS!” blah blah blah.

Do you realize that there were and still are people of faith that were *gasp* smart? Logical even? For Pete’s sake, religious belief has helped lay the very foundations of logic throughout the ages! Pythagoras, Newton, EINSTEIN, PEOPLE, EINSTEIN!!! Not to mention the vast majority of great leaders in the social sciences. Ghandi? MLK? Jimmy Carter seems to be doing good work in spite of being a crazy superstition believing nutjob.

To summarize:
Give the whole ‘religion is worthless superstition that only causes problems’ soundtrack a rest will ya? It’s obnoxious and frankly, embarrassing.

WmC July 28th, 2007 8:59 am

I worship at the altar of George Carlin, which promulgates one single, solitary commandmant: Keep Thy religion to Thyself.

KaneJeeves July 28th, 2007 11:59 am

neomonk - and yet the soundtrack is true. And please, if I hear another person say Einstein was religious. His idea of spirituality was basically the opposite of the big 3 religions. He specifically did NOT subscribe to a personal god. In fact he thought that was utterly unthinkable and quite selfish. (”I’ll help that poor soul so I can go to heaven” - very selfish.)

As for the Nazis…in fact they were quite religious, Hitler himself thinking he was doing the Lord’s work. (it’s right there in black and white in Mein Kampf.)

Siouxrose July 28th, 2007 1:48 pm

Hi KEM. These threads take HOURS to get through and I do have PERSONAL writing to do (LOL). Ah, the religious question. IF it were about “live and let live,” I have no complaints. It’s when religious PURPORTS to speak for GOD as one solitary monopoly on truth that my dander gets up, especially since that modus operandi is used time and time again to demonize one group, or get a lot of loyal followers roused enough to MURDER outsiders.
The human mind, if taken on a cosmic scale, has about as much perspective as an ant. It would be nothing short of hubris for an ant to define a human being, and by analogy we mortals are in NO position to define Creator, Creation or the Infinite. We use a number of tools, science, religion and mystical inquiry being some of the longest lasting ones available. WHEN these tools come into disagreement, a great deal of antipathy results.
I think it’s easy to make the case that MOST bloodshed has held (or used) a religious element. When I saw this angel-faced minister on C-span Christmas (2006) morning speaking about how the troops LOVE the Iraqis, and the unstated sentiment they are there to do God’s work, my blood crawled. It stuns the mind that the religious argument is STILL being used in the 21st century, when weapons are so utterly severe, to justify a blasphemy: that being it is HOLY and/or GOD’S will to wipe out infidels. The conservatives found in all three religions are most guilty of this diabolical inversion of spiritual truth.
It would be nice if we could all be chatty with our neighbors, enjoy the usual “minuets of protocol” in the face of others’ traditions and their rituals; but the larger fact remains, so long as religion is used as a tool to bludgeon others, it ceases to meet its own (should be) standards: to raise the bar on human conduct. I have argued long and hard, sometimes to vicious detractors on CD, that just as science has discovered the basis for biological evolution, there is a spiritual, if unseen, component. Science acquires its understanding in parallel with those who develop the wit to understand increasingly more complex relationships. That which is not yet realized poses as the TRUTH that IS out there.
If religions taught that each was a branch, a potentially glorious one, extended from the central tree of life, and that no branch could cut another without severe penalty (karma), I’d have a more positive attitude. That does not mean I don’t see great worth in the TEACHINGS of the masters. It’s what the followers have done to establish power-based hierarchies, and rules that ultimately hold minds and lives hostage, that I take issue with. These strategies have wounded mankind, and as the Iraqi war shows, continue to do so. (I realize the precarious state of the U.S. dollar, its tie to trade in oil, the engine that fuels global industry, also factors into this brutal war.)

annemarie j July 28th, 2007 4:44 pm

A beautiful letter, written (as I see it) in the spirit of love and kinship. I have no problem at all with it. And the fact that I find the tone a little saccharine, or somewhat maternalistic doesn’t bother me nor detract from my enjoyment and appreciation of it. That btw, is a minor observation and a matter of personal taste, not an insult. So nobody needs to defend the author, her essay, or cultural relativity in this instance

Also, I’m not a religious person. Perhaps like some other commenters here. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m atheist or agnostic either, though that is besides the point. Still it needs to be stated that some here would do well to not jump to hasty conclusions regarding others’ beliefs, faith, or lack thereof. If I say that in a political sense I’m in favour of separation of church and state which (I think) is defined as secular-humanist, does that necessarily mean that I’m Godless, atheist, or soul-less? Please!

And while I wholeheartedly agree with Mohja Kahf’s message, that of tolerance, kinship, universal acceptance, etc… I’m still a person who does not care for religion at all. I arrived at this sentiment over time. And while experience has taught me that it is good, decent, and proper to be respectful and tolerant of all others and their beliefs, I still sometimes squirm in the presence of conservative religious people, some of whom are my relatives. Mostly Christians, including several of the conservative and born-again variety, btw. I also count among my friends and close acquaintances, some Muslims, Jews, and others… Yet I find that it is always the most conservative who are the most dogmatic and the most judgemental. Intolerant is the word that might best describe their behaviour which is often suffocatingly authoritative, condescending, self-righteous, and patronizing to the point of being hateful. It is those behaviours in these otherwise good people which causes me to squirm in their presence. And which reinforces my aversion to their religion and beliefs.

It is also these same people who are fond of talking/preaching about universal love and brotherhood, equality, peace, etc., and who consistently do not live what they preach. Maybe they’re still “practicing”? (pun intended) The glaring contrast between their words and actions are hypocritical, and sometimes breathtaking to behold. Among the most appalling and disturbing aspects to me is their belief in an imminent, rapturous, bloody, violent, global apocalyse. As well as the arrogant notion that they are quite convinced that they will be saved, since they are living right, according to them. For example, it’s been explained to me in the most self-righteous way by one in-law: “I’m not worried about the end times. I know I’m going to be rapted [sic].” I was so dumbfounded by that particular statement, her cavalier, smug attitude, and her glassy-eyed gaze that I couldn’t even express the questions that rapid-fired in my brain!

I have to say that I wasn’t shocked that SHE had said that, per se. I’ve known her for decades. It was more her tone, conviction, and delivery that chilled me. Besides, how do you speak to or question someone who’s so utterly convinced of their own worthiness, righteousness, and specialness/chosenness? How does one begin to ask questions of someone who seems to believe that they already “know the mind of God”, even though they were careful to only imply it, not state it directly?!?! Geeze, in my books, that is sacrilegious. And again, I’m not even religious. So there.

And for the record, she’s not the only one. I mention only this one example, but it is quite typical. Especially of the mindset and mentality of the majority of conservative religious folk whom I know.

In any case, I wanted to weigh in here. Though I could have saved myself a heap of time if only I’d written that I agree with what Vinlander @ July 27th, 2007 4:55 pm wrote, particularly the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of his comment.

Peace!

————-

elmysterioso,

I find this comment of yours hilarious, in an ironic sort of way:

…So called “progressives” seem to lump all religious types into the same “Rabid Right Christians”. That’s certainly not the case. That’s the one thing that really bugs me about the “left”… their self-righteousness.

bcoop July 28th, 2007 9:14 pm

Thanks to Mohja for this article. My first thought was of my favourite poet, Hafiz, who tells truth with great love, gentleness, and some humour as well.

neomunk July 29th, 2007 12:01 pm

KaneJeeves: So because Einstein doesn’t fit into YOUR personal definition of religious (which is obviously flawed, seeing as you dismissed me with laughable “nothing like the big 3″ foolishness after I went out of my way to make sure I -DIDN’T- falsely claim he was some big orthodox Jew) doesn’t mean that he was not. Einstein believed in a spirituality that would be considered superstition by many of the above posters. THAT was my point. (but you knew that didn’t you?)

As for the Nazis, you can’t possibly believe that you’ll be successful in convincing me that the atrocities committed by those people were truely religious in motivation. I say it again, it was cold hard logic that inspired and propelled that particular group to power.

Looking back at your posts, you obviously have some personal problem with Christianity. Well fella, your personal experiences with one group (and of course it’s really just a subsection of that group, you’ve not dealt with all or even anywhere near close to most) somehow being indicative of the validity of religion as a whole is a ludicrous notion.

One more time for the slow kids in class:

#1: Some people want power, and to get this power these people will do or say ANYTHING that might give them some control over someone else. Religion, science, racial identity, nationalism, social class… ANYTHING that could possibly be used as a means to gain control over peoples lives. THEREIN lies your explanation as to the corruption of the churches, it’s simple and socially pervasive, even outside of the religious institutions.

#2: You do not have a working model of the universe with witch to demonstrate the incorrectness of religious belief. Really, you don’t. I don’t have one to demonstrate the correctness of spirituality/religion either, but I’m not assuming that science is superstition either. Please stop making bold and stiff statements lacking any reasonable evidence.

PaulMauriceMartin July 29th, 2007 1:57 pm

It’s politicized Christianity that’s the problem. That is, the Christian far right has tended to identify very specific items, mostly on the Republican agenda, with Christianity. But there isn’t a word in the New Testament about, say, stem cell research or abortion; and homosexuality is a minor note, not a central theme, and the Christian position on this is open to interpretation.

Politicized Christians take their sense of religious righteousness and zeal and apply it to their very human opinions. There’s nothing wrong with being a member of a faith tradition and being involved in politics, but there’s something wrong with trying to equate a political agenda with the substance of one’s faith tradition. It’s false.

Siouxrose July 29th, 2007 3:39 pm

PAULMAURICEMARTIN: Excellent point, and it deserves to be taken farther. The politicized Christians are the ones that are most influential as a voting block to this egregious excuse for a president and fueling his policies of destruction. THAT is why I have very strong feelings about this use of religion to engender a bona fide Armageddon. Where do progressive votes fit into that scenario? The gross irony of course being that this same group is first to scream “right to life” to protect the unborn fetus, but seems to worship weapons, force, and explosive deliverance systems of massive DEATH. So when religion crosses the borderline past sanity and wants to take the rest of us along, then we must question the basis for that religion due to its substantial claim upon political policy!

iwarrior July 29th, 2007 9:40 pm

I know I keep sounding like a broken record here, but there is no religion or culture that hasn’t an underbelly. Nor is there a religion or culture that hasn’t in some way helped better humankind in some way.

Neomunk and siouxrose and annemarie, great posts as always.

I myself despite being raised Catholic am not a religious person. I did go through a phase throughout my teens and early twenties where I almost detested religion due to negative experiences with Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not physical harm, mainly the hypocrisy and self-righteousness I witnessed.

I remember some church lady (not an actual nun) in my Sunday School class telling me prior to Dana Carvey making it a famous line that “some people go to church when it’s convenient” and admonishing me for being honest about the fact that I didn’t always make it to church. Ya see…it would have endangered my prospects of getting Confirmed. Oooohhh. Meanwhile, I also remember this very lady using a racial slur in the very same class. What about love thy neighbor and us all being children in the eyes of God.

I remember the JW kids on my street telling me that I wouldn’t make it to the “New System” because I was Catholic, read comic books and listened to heavy metal. I guess behavior didn’t have a thing to do with getting to Paradise. After all, one of these very kids tried to set fire to our house. Another bragged openly about having sexual encounters with girls on the back of the school bus as well as smoking weed and shoplifting.

Oh yeah, one of them also attacked me with a saw blade once.

Religion can absolutely be used and bent towards evil. No doubt.

But as other have suggested, so can science.

Are all atheists believers in peace and justice? Um no. I’ve encountered a number of them who were aside from not believing in God were just as right-wing as Pat Buchanan and just as in lust with the free market as Milton Friedman was. In fact, they can be as racist, sexist, homophobic, and all-around intolerant as anyone.

I’ve said this before, and perhaps this is a flaw of mine…

…I wouldn’t want to live in a world ruled by religion. But at the same time, I’m not sure I’d want to live in a world where no one believed in spirituality either.

Religion should stay out of politics and science, but it has its place nonetheless. Let’s not dump the chicken out with the stock.

iwarrior July 29th, 2007 9:55 pm

And btw, I have never known a Muslim (and I have known them) who wanted to kill me or my family for any reason, let alone being of a different faith. Nor have I ever met a Jew who thought of me as a goy or as less-than for not having semitic blood running through me.

On the other hand, I have known Christians who thought I would roast in hell for not being devout enough. Some of those people have been within my own family. I have also encountered enough atheists who have thought me to be “stupid and weak minded” simply because I believe in a higher power and refused to put up with their their jabs.

That’s not to say that I hate Christians and atheists. I’ve tussled with the Christian-haters in the metal scene and the holy rollers equally. I’m also currently friends with a girl who’s an atheist and have in my personal life seen the myth of the child-hating harpy nun shattered before my eyes. In fact, just as I have never met a Muslim who wanted to harm me, I have also never met a nun or priest who was anything but kind and warm to me. Even when I had long-hair and a Megadeth t-shirt on. Actually, I used to work at a Catholic hospital, and fondly recall a nun sticking up for me when a nurse openly derided me for having long hair (yes, I had long locks once) by pointing out that Christ himself had long hair. I also remember making her laugh in agreement when I suggested that Christ was the first rock star.

Think about it. He had long hair he was tall, skinny, had great abs. Authority figures hated him. The people loved him and still do ala Hendrix, Morrison, Scott, Rhoads, Cobain, etc. And like those rockers mentioned, he died young, burning out in a bright flash rather than fading away. Christ lives on any way you look at it.

I don’t know what all of that means, but that’s been my experience.

annemarie j July 31st, 2007 12:01 am

iwarrior,

You’re cool in my books

And I think that the real, underlying problem is that of *zealotry*. Like what you alluded to, whether it’s scientific zealotry, religious zealotry, or any other, fill-in-the-blanks zealotry, it’s hateful, divisive, and pernicious.

I suppose a fine balance is what some are striving for. In my mind, it all comes down to individuals, and individual character, no matter whether you self-identify as religious, atheist, or even a human animal

btw, you don’t have to be religious to be spiritual.

Good posts iwarrior. You don’t sound like a broken record. And I got your drift, even if you don’t know what it all means

Io Q. Lellity July 27th, 2007 12:28 pm

No, the three middle eastern religions should have stayed in the place where they were first developed. They came here by way of genocide, and now they are pushing for the apocalypse. Religious “values” (wrong term) are in conflict with secular principals of equality; they are in religion-dominated states like america, isreal, and islamic countries, and they always were.
peoplefirst July 27th, 2007 12:33 pm

I was expecting a letter to Barbara Bush about her
son, but I guess that would have been a letter to a
beautiful “mind” - appropriate since they have no
heart to write to and even though the son seems
mindless.
Samski July 27th, 2007 2:10 pm

“People of faith do not signify the apocalypse for democracy”

Surely she means moderate people of faith, who also keep their unfounded beliefs from discolouring rational discourse.

I couldn’t get past the third condescending ‘my dears…’ before I had to stop reading and give up my search for some evidence of above assertion.
jareilly July 27th, 2007 2:29 pm

“Islam never really took in the Arab world”? Really? Then maybe the Pre-Mohammed Arab worldview has completely taken Islam. You cannot find Mohammed commanding honor killings, female genital mutilation, “ownership” of wives and female children, or for that matter suicide bombings, killing of non-combatants, or summary murder of non-Moslems in the Koran. In fact the veil itself is not required by the Koran. Mohammed “secluded” his wives to stop them from bickering. He called upon Muslims to be modest but not to cover women’s body’s from head to foot or beat them with sticks if the coverings blow off in a breeze.

But Muslims do not reject these practises. There are Christian groups that publicly oppose the Christian Right and Jewish groups that publicly oppose the Jewish Right and oppose the government of Israel. Where are the Muslim groups doing the same? Where are the Muslim women active against child marriage, genital mutilation, and honor killings, especially here in the US where the author says Muslims are free to really practice Islam?

Another thing - nobody on the Left advocates denying devout Christians, Jews or Muslims their basic rights. The situation is just the opposite. The Religious Right (of all faiths) seeks to impose an authoritarian, absolutist society on secularists by means of an assault on law, culture, reason and in some cases life and property. To oppose this assault is not to deny its advocates their rights. It’s not the same thing as discrimination, bigotry or prejudice.

If I were the author I would try as she does, to get along with my Christian neighbors at the farmer’s market, but I’d keep a weather eye out and a bag packed. Some of those same friendly, Christian neighbors would no doubt rat her out in flash if the big crack down came and their TV preachers supported it.
vinlander July 27th, 2007 3:31 pm

May Odin forgive her this misbelief.
namvet67 July 27th, 2007 4:02 pm

Grown people fighting over fairy tales. That’s what religious wars are and always have been. Muslims today are the Native American Indians. They are in the way of the spreading of god’s word. Love your neighbor but shoot him if he prays to a different god.
Hoa binh
elmysterio July 27th, 2007 4:10 pm

Not all Christians are ignorant morons… just like not all Muslims are terrorists. So called “progressives” seem to lump all religious types into the same “Rabid Right Christians”. That’s certainly not the case. That’s the one thing that really bugs me about the “left”… their self-righteousness. Hell, if you read the Gospels in the bible or what the Prophet says in the quoran, and put them into the political spectrum, they’re quite left of center… it’s the fact that the truth has been twisted and corrupted by evil humans for their own nefarious purposes.

Samski: Her “my dears” is not condesending… it’s sweet. Like an old grandmother telling a story. It’s also a cultural thing… something you stupid americans don’t understand.
KaneJeeves July 27th, 2007 4:42 pm

“Christian values have motivated the Ku Klux Klan to burn houses, and Jimmy Carter to build them.” This tells me those values are useless. If a doctor said ‘take this medicine, it killed my first patient but cured my second’ any sane person would go to another doctor.
vinlander July 27th, 2007 4:55 pm

Believe whatever makes you happy, but don’t ask me to respect something that is, to my way of thinking, illogical claptrap merely because you say it’s your religion. People don’t rise from the dead, they don’t ascend into heaven on winged horses, burning bushes don’t talk, water doesn’t turn into wine (but I’ve been to parties where wine does turn into water as the evening wears on). These things aren’t miracles; someone’s either lying or hallucinating. Personally, I prefer those who hallucinate because they tend to keep their hands off my wallet.

Now, if you want to discuss religious ideas as philosophy, that is another matter entirely. Jesus of Nazareth and Mohammed, peace be unto them both, taught a great many things wiser than those that their followers practice. Their teachings even have a certain internal consistency and logic.

But the counter-factual myths and legends that abound in religion can only be taken as metaphor, and even then, some are just plain wrong. So, believe what you want, but don’t threaten me if I have the temerity to say out loud that what you believe is silly. After all, you have the same right to mock me (and if you got to know me, you’d have more ammunition than I).
TextGuru July 27th, 2007 6:03 pm

The importance of a secular state, and of secularism, is to remove religious belief and worldview from the government of a religiously pluralist society. Because democracy is partially based on government by consensus, it follows that imposing religious requirements in a religiously plural society could never represent the consensus view. Furthermore, when the government is based on egalitarian values — giving equal power to each individual based on ‘inalienable rights,’ religious requirements cannot, by their nature, treat all individuals equally. Therefore, laws and rulings should not prescribe or proscribe any religion or religious activity in a truly secular state. Laws and rulings should be based on commonly-held notions of justice, equality, and respect for human life.

However, that does not eliminate the influence of the devotion of individuals as they act in the public sphere. It is possible to be a good governor because you are also a devout Muslim. However, the point about a secular state is that you are not required to be a good Muslim to be a good governor, or to be a governor at all.

Secularism protects all of us from injustice and inequality. It is essential that we uphold the value of a secular state, but that doesn’t mean that we have the obligation to demean or glorify any one religion just because it is a religion. In our public discourse, we should be respectful as we tell the truth.
KEM PATRICK July 27th, 2007 6:11 pm

Where is siouxrose?
abuelito July 27th, 2007 7:37 pm

wouldn’t it be easier to just toss all those fairy tale “religions” with their endless apologies and excuses and attempts to demonstrate that they “really” aren’t what they so obviously are? They all admit they worship the loony jealous vengeful punishing god of Abraham- how can anyone be expected to take them seriously? let’s try being humans for a while and see what happens.
liberata July 27th, 2007 8:54 pm

>>Look, Islam never really “took” in the Arab world.

Please do not be discourged, dear Mohja. Christianity is very much a work in progress too. And look how many centuries we’ve supposedly been at it!

As a famous Christian once said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

In the Light.
KaneJeeves July 27th, 2007 10:17 pm

Christianity’s been at it for more than 2000 years and it still can’t stop priests from abusing boys. In any other context we’d call that complete and utter failure. Pitiful.
neomunk July 28th, 2007 1:24 am

LOL

The atheists are out rabid today.

Listen up, I have a few questions for all you Ivory Tower fanatical Atheists out there.

If your ’secular’ worldview is so sanitary, clean, logical and innocent, tell me what religion is responsible for such things as reckless industrialization, corporitization, and such nice trinkets like the atomic, nuclear and chemical weapons being (to this day) developed and used?

No, seems to me that those things would come from a worldview without any concept of ’soul’.

Or maybe, it’s something else entirely, as are all the bad bad things you keep wagging your finger towards various religions about… Like the fact that some people will grasp at any sliver of power they can get their hands on and twist it to their own selfish ends. Quite easy to do with religion (why is that anyways, if it’s so obviously foolish, oh secularists?) and it has been done. Very bad things have happened in the name of religion.

Now, tell me, without snickering, that no atrocities have ever been committed in the name of secular ‘progress’ ala ’science’. No, I didn’t think you could. Watch the movie ‘Conspiracy’ some time about a roomful of high ranking Nazis discussing the Jewish ‘problem’. Bunch of religious fanatics? No, cold hard logic was their game.

Your whining about the foolishness of other peoples beliefs (especially in light of the fact that we both know you don’t have a full and working model of reality to offer instead) is unimpressive to say the least. it comes out sounding like an argument between a Hindu child and a Christian child… “THIS is true because my book says so.” “Nuh UH! My book says THIS!” blah blah blah.

Do you realize that there were and still are people of faith that were *gasp* smart? Logical even? For Pete’s sake, religious belief has helped lay the very foundations of logic throughout the ages! Pythagoras, Newton, EINSTEIN, PEOPLE, EINSTEIN!!! Not to mention the vast majority of great leaders in the social sciences. Ghandi? MLK? Jimmy Carter seems to be doing good work in spite of being a crazy superstition believing nutjob.

To summarize:
Give the whole ‘religion is worthless superstition that only causes problems’ soundtrack a rest will ya? It’s obnoxious and frankly, embarrassing.
WmC July 28th, 2007 8:59 am

I worship at the altar of George Carlin, which promulgates one single, solitary commandmant: Keep Thy religion to Thyself.
KaneJeeves July 28th, 2007 11:59 am

neomonk - and yet the soundtrack is true. And please, if I hear another person say Einstein was religious. His idea of spirituality was basically the opposite of the big 3 religions. He specifically did NOT subscribe to a personal god. In fact he thought that was utterly unthinkable and quite selfish. (”I’ll help that poor soul so I can go to heaven” - very selfish.)

As for the Nazis…in fact they were quite religious, Hitler himself thinking he was doing the Lord’s work. (it’s right there in black and white in Mein Kampf.)
Siouxrose July 28th, 2007 1:48 pm

Hi KEM. These threads take HOURS to get through and I do have PERSONAL writing to do (LOL). Ah, the religious question. IF it were about “live and let live,” I have no complaints. It’s when religious PURPORTS to speak for GOD as one solitary monopoly on truth that my dander gets up, especially since that modus operandi is used time and time again to demonize one group, or get a lot of loyal followers roused enough to MURDER outsiders.
The human mind, if taken on a cosmic scale, has about as much perspective as an ant. It would be nothing short of hubris for an ant to define a human being, and by analogy we mortals are in NO position to define Creator, Creation or the Infinite. We use a number of tools, science, religion and mystical inquiry being some of the longest lasting ones available. WHEN these tools come into disagreement, a great deal of antipathy results.
I think it’s easy to make the case that MOST bloodshed has held (or used) a religious element. When I saw this angel-faced minister on C-span Christmas (2006) morning speaking about how the troops LOVE the Iraqis, and the unstated sentiment they are there to do God’s work, my blood crawled. It stuns the mind that the religious argument is STILL being used in the 21st century, when weapons are so utterly severe, to justify a blasphemy: that being it is HOLY and/or GOD’S will to wipe out infidels. The conservatives found in all three religions are most guilty of this diabolical inversion of spiritual truth.
It would be nice if we could all be chatty with our neighbors, enjoy the usual “minuets of protocol” in the face of others’ traditions and their rituals; but the larger fact remains, so long as religion is used as a tool to bludgeon others, it ceases to meet its own (should be) standards: to raise the bar on human conduct. I have argued long and hard, sometimes to vicious detractors on CD, that just as science has discovered the basis for biological evolution, there is a spiritual, if unseen, component. Science acquires its understanding in parallel with those who develop the wit to understand increasingly more complex relationships. That which is not yet realized poses as the TRUTH that IS out there.
If religions taught that each was a branch, a potentially glorious one, extended from the central tree of life, and that no branch could cut another without severe penalty (karma), I’d have a more positive attitude. That does not mean I don’t see great worth in the TEACHINGS of the masters. It’s what the followers have done to establish power-based hierarchies, and rules that ultimately hold minds and lives hostage, that I take issue with. These strategies have wounded mankind, and as the Iraqi war shows, continue to do so. (I realize the precarious state of the U.S. dollar, its tie to trade in oil, the engine that fuels global industry, also factors into this brutal war.)
annemarie j July 28th, 2007 4:44 pm

A beautiful letter, written (as I see it) in the spirit of love and kinship. I have no problem at all with it. And the fact that I find the tone a little saccharine, or somewhat maternalistic doesn’t bother me nor detract from my enjoyment and appreciation of it. That btw, is a minor observation and a matter of personal taste, not an insult. So nobody needs to defend the author, her essay, or cultural relativity in this instance

Also, I’m not a religious person. Perhaps like some other commenters here. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m atheist or agnostic either, though that is besides the point. Still it needs to be stated that some here would do well to not jump to hasty conclusions regarding others’ beliefs, faith, or lack thereof. If I say that in a political sense I’m in favour of separation of church and state which (I think) is defined as secular-humanist, does that necessarily mean that I’m Godless, atheist, or soul-less? Please!

And while I wholeheartedly agree with Mohja Kahf’s message, that of tolerance, kinship, universal acceptance, etc… I’m still a person who does not care for religion at all. I arrived at this sentiment over time. And while experience has taught me that it is good, decent, and proper to be respectful and tolerant of all others and their beliefs, I still sometimes squirm in the presence of conservative religious people, some of whom are my relatives. Mostly Christians, including several of the conservative and born-again variety, btw. I also count among my friends and close acquaintances, some Muslims, Jews, and others… Yet I find that it is always the most conservative who are the most dogmatic and the most judgemental. Intolerant is the word that might best describe their behaviour which is often suffocatingly authoritative, condescending, self-righteous, and patronizing to the point of being hateful. It is those behaviours in these otherwise good people which causes me to squirm in their presence. And which reinforces my aversion to their religion and beliefs.

It is also these same people who are fond of talking/preaching about universal love and brotherhood, equality, peace, etc., and who consistently do not live what they preach. Maybe they’re still “practicing”? (pun intended) The glaring contrast between their words and actions are hypocritical, and sometimes breathtaking to behold. Among the most appalling and disturbing aspects to me is their belief in an imminent, rapturous, bloody, violent, global apocalyse. As well as the arrogant notion that they are quite convinced that they will be saved, since they are living right, according to them. For example, it’s been explained to me in the most self-righteous way by one in-law: “I’m not worried about the end times. I know I’m going to be rapted [sic].” I was so dumbfounded by that particular statement, her cavalier, smug attitude, and her glassy-eyed gaze that I couldn’t even express the questions that rapid-fired in my brain!

I have to say that I wasn’t shocked that SHE had said that, per se. I’ve known her for decades. It was more her tone, conviction, and delivery that chilled me. Besides, how do you speak to or question someone who’s so utterly convinced of their own worthiness, righteousness, and specialness/chosenness? How does one begin to ask questions of someone who seems to believe that they already “know the mind of God”, even though they were careful to only imply it, not state it directly?!?! Geeze, in my books, that is sacrilegious. And again, I’m not even religious. So there.

And for the record, she’s not the only one. I mention only this one example, but it is quite typical. Especially of the mindset and mentality of the majority of conservative religious folk whom I know.

In any case, I wanted to weigh in here. Though I could have saved myself a heap of time if only I’d written that I agree with what Vinlander @ July 27th, 2007 4:55 pm wrote, particularly the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of his comment.

Peace!

————-

elmysterioso,

I find this comment of yours hilarious, in an ironic sort of way:

…So called “progressives” seem to lump all religious types into the same “Rabid Right Christians”. That’s certainly not the case. That’s the one thing that really bugs me about the “left”… their self-righteousness.
bcoop July 28th, 2007 9:14 pm

Thanks to Mohja for this article. My first thought was of my favourite poet, Hafiz, who tells truth with great love, gentleness, and some humour as well.
neomunk July 29th, 2007 12:01 pm

KaneJeeves: So because Einstein doesn’t fit into YOUR personal definition of religious (which is obviously flawed, seeing as you dismissed me with laughable “nothing like the big 3″ foolishness after I went out of my way to make sure I -DIDN’T- falsely claim he was some big orthodox Jew) doesn’t mean that he was not. Einstein believed in a spirituality that would be considered superstition by many of the above posters. THAT was my point. (but you knew that didn’t you?)

As for the Nazis, you can’t possibly believe that you’ll be successful in convincing me that the atrocities committed by those people were truely religious in motivation. I say it again, it was cold hard logic that inspired and propelled that particular group to power.

Looking back at your posts, you obviously have some personal problem with Christianity. Well fella, your personal experiences with one group (and of course it’s really just a subsection of that group, you’ve not dealt with all or even anywhere near close to most) somehow being indicative of the validity of religion as a whole is a ludicrous notion.

One more time for the slow kids in class:

#1: Some people want power, and to get this power these people will do or say ANYTHING that might give them some control over someone else. Religion, science, racial identity, nationalism, social class… ANYTHING that could possibly be used as a means to gain control over peoples lives. THEREIN lies your explanation as to the corruption of the churches, it’s simple and socially pervasive, even outside of the religious institutions.

#2: You do not have a working model of the universe with witch to demonstrate the incorrectness of religious belief. Really, you don’t. I don’t have one to demonstrate the correctness of spirituality/religion either, but I’m not assuming that science is superstition either. Please stop making bold and stiff statements lacking any reasonable evidence.
PaulMauriceMartin July 29th, 2007 1:57 pm

It’s politicized Christianity that’s the problem. That is, the Christian far right has tended to identify very specific items, mostly on the Republican agenda, with Christianity. But there isn’t a word in the New Testament about, say, stem cell research or abortion; and homosexuality is a minor note, not a central theme, and the Christian position on this is open to interpretation.

Politicized Christians take their sense of religious righteousness and zeal and apply it to their very human opinions. There’s nothing wrong with being a member of a faith tradition and being involved in politics, but there’s something wrong with trying to equate a political agenda with the substance of one’s faith tradition. It’s false.
Siouxrose July 29th, 2007 3:39 pm

PAULMAURICEMARTIN: Excellent point, and it deserves to be taken farther. The politicized Christians are the ones that are most influential as a voting block to this egregious excuse for a president and fueling his policies of destruction. THAT is why I have very strong feelings about this use of religion to engender a bona fide Armageddon. Where do progressive votes fit into that scenario? The gross irony of course being that this same group is first to scream “right to life” to protect the unborn fetus, but seems to worship weapons, force, and explosive deliverance systems of massive DEATH. So when religion crosses the borderline past sanity and wants to take the rest of us along, then we must question the basis for that religion due to its substantial claim upon political policy!
iwarrior July 29th, 2007 9:40 pm

I know I keep sounding like a broken record here, but there is no religion or culture that hasn’t an underbelly. Nor is there a religion or culture that hasn’t in some way helped better humankind in some way.

Neomunk and siouxrose and annemarie, great posts as always.

I myself despite being raised Catholic am not a religious person. I did go through a phase throughout my teens and early twenties where I almost detested religion due to negative experiences with Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not physical harm, mainly the hypocrisy and self-righteousness I witnessed.

I remember some church lady (not an actual nun) in my Sunday School class telling me prior to Dana Carvey making it a famous line that “some people go to church when it’s convenient” and admonishing me for being honest about the fact that I didn’t always make it to church. Ya see…it would have endangered my prospects of getting Confirmed. Oooohhh. Meanwhile, I also remember this very lady using a racial slur in the very same class. What about love thy neighbor and us all being children in the eyes of God.

I remember the JW kids on my street telling me that I wouldn’t make it to the “New System” because I was Catholic, read comic books and listened to heavy metal. I guess behavior didn’t have a thing to do with getting to Paradise. After all, one of these very kids tried to set fire to our house. Another bragged openly about having sexual encounters with girls on the back of the school bus as well as smoking weed and shoplifting.

Oh yeah, one of them also attacked me with a saw blade once.

Religion can absolutely be used and bent towards evil. No doubt.

But as other have suggested, so can science.

Are all atheists believers in peace and justice? Um no. I’ve encountered a number of them who were aside from not believing in God were just as right-wing as Pat Buchanan and just as in lust with the free market as Milton Friedman was. In fact, they can be as racist, sexist, homophobic, and all-around intolerant as anyone.

I’ve said this before, and perhaps this is a flaw of mine…

…I wouldn’t want to live in a world ruled by religion. But at the same time, I’m not sure I’d want to live in a world where no one believed in spirituality either.

Religion should stay out of politics and science, but it has its place nonetheless. Let’s not dump the chicken out with the stock.
iwarrior July 29th, 2007 9:55 pm

And btw, I have never known a Muslim (and I have known them) who wanted to kill me or my family for any reason, let alone being of a different faith. Nor have I ever met a Jew who thought of me as a goy or as less-than for not having semitic blood running through me.

On the other hand, I have known Christians who thought I would roast in hell for not being devout enough. Some of those people have been within my own family. I have also encountered enough atheists who have thought me to be “stupid and weak minded” simply because I believe in a higher power and refused to put up with their their jabs.

That’s not to say that I hate Christians and atheists. I’ve tussled with the Christian-haters in the metal scene and the holy rollers equally. I’m also currently friends with a girl who’s an atheist and have in my personal life seen the myth of the child-hating harpy nun shattered before my eyes. In fact, just as I have never met a Muslim who wanted to harm me, I have also never met a nun or priest who was anything but kind and warm to me. Even when I had long-hair and a Megadeth t-shirt on. Actually, I used to work at a Catholic hospital, and fondly recall a nun sticking up for me when a nurse openly derided me for having long hair (yes, I had long locks once) by pointing out that Christ himself had long hair. I also remember making her laugh in agreement when I suggested that Christ was the first rock star.

Think about it. He had long hair he was tall, skinny, had great abs. Authority figures hated him. The people loved him and still do ala Hendrix, Morrison, Scott, Rhoads, Cobain, etc. And like those rockers mentioned, he died young, burning out in a bright flash rather than fading away. Christ lives on any way you look at it.

I don’t know what all of that means, but that’s been my experience.
annemarie j July 31st, 2007 12:01 am

iwarrior,

You’re cool in my books

And I think that the real, underlying problem is that of *zealotry*. Like what you alluded to, whether it’s scientific zealotry, religious zealotry, or any other, fill-in-the-blanks zealotry, it’s hateful, divisive, and pernicious.

I suppose a fine balance is what some are striving for. In my mind, it all comes down to individuals, and individual character, no matter whether you self-identify as religious, atheist, or even a human animal

btw, you don’t have to be religious to be spiritual.

Good posts iwarrior. You don’t sound like a broken record. And I got your drift, even if you don’t know what it all means

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)