You may not know it to look at me, but I am an enemy of religion.
Well, some people say that anyway based on two simple facts: I'm agnostic, and I believe the government should stay as far away from religious speech as it can.
This seems to be a sectarian version of "if you're not with us, you're against us." To true believers, even a declared neutral on religion is an adversary. By such logic, there is no such thing as neutral. "Neutrality" is simply code for "doesn't support," which of course means "opposes."
That may be helpful when trying to construct an "us against the heathen hordes" mindset, but it doesn't really comport well with reality. I send my children to Lutheran preschools; I have written frequently about Abdul Rahman, and will write about other religious freedom cases in the future; I strongly support individual religious liberty. I respect the role of religion in society. I have tossed change into Salvation Army kettles.
I just happen to think that religion is not a government concern. It's one of a whole host of things — like, say, clothing styles — where government should not have a role. As citizens, we all have a right to practice our religion as we see fit. What we do not have is the right to use the government to promote our religion.
An agnostic who supports religion
I was raised Presbyterian, so I have more than a passing familiarity with Christianity. But I'm an agnostic for the classic reason: I don't believe the existence or nonexistence of God can be proven, so why waste time on an unsolvable puzzle? It's fun to noodle on, but not really worth the investment of serious study. If He exists, great. If He doesn't, okay. I guess I'll find out when I'm dead.
Same thing with "Is there an afterlife?" Nobody knows, so any attempt to reason it out or "prove it" inevitably devolves into finding an explanation that is comforting to you. I sincerely hope there is an afterlife, and we all owe religion a "thank you" for coming up with the concept; but believe in it? Can't do it.
Does that mean I think believers are gullible, easily deluded saps? Hardly. Just because they cannot prove to me that God exists doesn't mean that they have not had His existence proven to their own satisfaction. Perhaps they've had a personal experience with God. Perhaps they see God's presence in the structure of the world around them. Who am I to say they're wrong?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - A.L. Harper
Excellent article! Very well written and thought out. Persuasive.
2 - zingzing
wonderful. let's see how they disagree with this... it's amazing how if you put something logically, without yelling about it, how persuasive it becomes. i couldn't write something like this. i think the way you do, but i write like some raving lunatic, yelling and cursing and insulting as i go. it's beautiful. i love riling them up. but... it doesn't get me anywhere.
i can't wait to see how they ("they") react to this. part of me wouldn't be surprised if they try to poke you a new asshole. part of me wouldn't be surprised if they just leave this alone, because there is nothing they can say.
3 - gonzo marx
ok...time for some quibbles...
"faith based initiaives" - sorry...they don't get a fucking dime of government money as long as they remain tax exempt...fair enough?
i differentiate betwen "Faith" and "Religion"
the Author does well to define his differences as well when speaking of organized religion as opposed to personal observances...this differnce needs to be more pronounced in our national discourse IMO
probably some more, but those are the first things that jumped out at me...i will re-read this one more carefully as time allows
thanks to the Poster for a thoughtful read
Excelsior!
4 - Sean Aqui
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Gonzo, the issue of whether churches should be tax-exempt is a separate one to me. I agree with you in general. A special tax-exemption for churches doesn't make much sense, though I think they should be able to qualify for tax-exemptions the way any other nonprofit does.
But that particular issue doesn't have to be injected into the faith-based initiatives debate. As long as the government is dispensing grants using religiously neutral criteria, religious organizations should be as eligible as anyone else. After all, the purpose is to help people. Do we really want to hamper that help because of quibbles about the tax status of some of those groups?
There have to be restrictions on proselytization so the government isn't indirectly funding a "souls for soup" exchange -- but if we're helping the homeless, for example, I don't care whether that help comes from a church or not.
5 - gonzo marx
fair enough...but what about hiring discrimination of said organizations?
is it ok for our government to give money to said organizations who won't hire gays? for example
or..taken to the extreme to make a point...
a soup kitchen with NO evangelizing, owned by the KKK that will not hire jews or blacks....do they get money too?
you see where i am going with this...a very dangerous place
treat them like any other non-profit...fine, but make them live up to the standards and regulations that those organizations do (including filing their tax returns, even those that are exempt) as well as hiring practices, safety issues and so on
then i am ok with it, but everything i have read on the subject is all one way...FOR the "faith based" and screw the secular rules that go along with the cash
and there's the problem
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
6 - Sean Aqui
Those are all issues to be addressed, I agree.
This is a bit radical, I know, but I'm less concerned with the organization's internal hiring practices than their service practices: the KKK-backed group is free to hire only whites, but they have to equally and fairly serve anyone who walks through the door. If they can't do that -- and their hiring practices could be taken as at least partial evidence that they can't -- then they can be denied money.
The key here is to focus on what the purpose of the grants are: to get aid to needy people.
7 - gonzo marx
i must Respectfully disagree with you here, Sean...
as Yeshua proved in his Passion...the Ends NEVER justify the Means...the Means are the End unto themselves
this is evenmore important when you speak of a representative Republics spending of public cash gathered via involuntary taxes
so far...nothing in the last 5 years has shown me the current Regime can be trusted with a lollipop, much less how to spend the citizen's Wealth
hence my innate distrust of ANY plan they utter to "privatize" ANYTHING!!!
follow the money anbd see who's pocket's it winds up in...no matteer how noble sounding the Cause, or how nice it looks on paper...
example: who woudl vote against something called the "Patriot Act"?
nuff said?
Excelsior!
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Well Zingzing, you wrote,
wonderful. let's see how they disagree with this...
See who disagreed with the agnostic author? Another agnostic quibbling over hypotheticals - and winding up quoting a religion!
You can't win sometimes...
9 - gonzo marx
well Ruvy...where have i ever said i was an agnostic?
and i Quoted an Idea put forward by a Teacher of a Philosophy
please note the differnces, then you might understand where i am coming from a bit better
for the record: i am vehemently AGAINST US federal money going to ANY "religious" based institution ...see the seperation clause in thye First Amendment
but i am silly that way
Excelsior!
10 - gonzo marx
oh yes, and most of my Quibbles are NOT "hypotheticals" tho i did use one extreme example to make my point..
for instance, Catholic charities, which do great work mind you, will NOT hire gays or jews...a clear violation of federal anti-dicrimination practices...and thus should render them ineligible for federal money by the Law's own guidelines
just an example to illustrate a point
Excelsior!
11 - zingzing
i'm still waiting for a religious person to try to tear this apart. i noticed you, ruvy, didn't have much to say... but you're not one of the zealots i worry about. you're religious... but you're not absolutely insane with it... not all the time...
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Hey Gonzo, I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you one way or another. I am just utterly amused, that's all. So you're not an agnostic, eh, just a heretic.
Okay, that's cool.
Zingzing,
The only religious person who might attempt to tear apart an agnostic's defense of religion is a fool. It's called biting the hand that feeds you.
You may remember Mr. Ed. He kept quiet when he had nothing to say. Wise policy, that.
13 - gonzo marx
awww...Ruvy..i never said i wasn't either...
you might note i've NEVER stated anything about "belief"
but i digress...
/end highjack
Excelsior!
14 - zingzing
ruvy- i'm more interested in the religion in politics portion of this. not in the "religion's okay" bits.
15 - bill
"Is evolution opposed to God? Only if you think God couldn't have chosen evolution as one of the mechanisms of creation."
Well, I think the issue here is that evolution explains itself, does not need some supernatural-mighty-beign behind it, you don't need God to explain evolution.
Why God would have chosen evolution instead of popping up every form of life in a couple of days, beign IMPOSSIBLE to be explained with sience?
Saying God CHOOSE EVOLUTION, is the same as saying green hornets from pluto choose it.
Occam's Razor principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explantory hypothesis or theory.
16 - RedTard
"you don't need God to explain evolution."
And you don't need evolution to explain god.
"Why God would have chosen evolution instead of popping up every form of life in a couple of days, beign IMPOSSIBLE to be explained with sience?"
Perhaps he did pop everything into existence and set it in motion during the big bang (that's nanoseconds, not days). Your small mortal mind is just not capable of grasping the beauty of the plan.
"Saying God CHOOSE EVOLUTION, is the same as saying green hornets from pluto choose it."
Not really, perhaps you should read the link you provided and apply the razor yourself. The second statement makes many more assumptions.
17 - bill
I see... you are proving that God exists assuming it exists, interesting.
Oh, maybe you are not trying to prove.. it's just a matter of faith...in that case I have the same right to believe green hornets from pluto created life, cause it has the same EVIDENCE, NONE.
You see, I'll explain it to you carefully cause I think you did not understand:
Evolution of the species, is as truth as Newton laws, there is DATA, PROVE, scientific method behind it.
Planes fly based on Bernoulli principle, not on same magic or external super-beign, you don't NEED a God to explain it.(Maybe in ancient times rain was God's gift, not now for sure).
Well, you don't need a God to explain life either.
I'm sorry to tell you is as ridiculous as saying planes fly cause an invisible spirit is holding it from below.
Give it a think before answering please....
You sould read a little about evolution too, maybe you grasp the beauty of the NO PLAN!
Regards
18 - Sean Aqui
Bill, you're correct in saying evolution doesn't need God. But it doesn't exclude God, either. We don't know how life first sprang up; evolution only describes what happened to life afterwards. Perhaps life just came into existence spontaneously; that's plausible. Or perhaps a God created it.
The Big Bang tries to explain how the universe began.It doesn't really get into why the universe began at that particular moment, or what started it. It's like writing a description of an explosion, but starting at a point after the explosion has already begun.
Occam's Razor applies to science and the observable universe, not God. And arguably it implies the existence of God, anyway. For life to spontaneously arise requires lots and lots of little steps, whereas "God did it" requires just one -- if you're willing to overlook questions like "Who made God?"
19 - RedTard
I'm not trying to prove anything exists. I know nothing about why we are here and I don't claim to. The title of the post is an Agnostic defense of religion, not proof that god exists.
You do have the same right to believe in green hornets as anyone else does. The question is what is it about your personality that makes you want to attack someone else's beliefs as ridiculous without provocation? Does it give you pleasure to insult a 'fundy'?
Someone earlier in the thread wondered aloud how long before "they" (the religious types) would get riled up over the post. I think the more appropriate question is how long will it take the religion intolerant left to jump on the thread?
It is popular to demonize and attack anyone of faith these days. The fact that religion is openly attacked is a sign that it has become weak, even though it is portrayed as exactly the opposite. Oh well, it's no skin off my back, as long as the intolerant aren't coming for me I shouldn't make a fuss.
20 - bill
Well, obviously I'm not able to explain myself.
I did not say evolution exclude God. I say life could be explained with evolution, without God.
Maybe a God does exists, and maybe green hornets exists in north face of pluto.
What I'm saying is that there is no evidence and no reason to believe a God exists indeed.
As Friedrich Nietzsche said it...
What is it: is man only a blunder of God, or God only a blunder of man?
21 - bill
RedTard, I'm sorry if you feel insulted, I didn't mean to.
Maybe victimizing yourself excludes you from opening your mind and discussing religious issues(what this thread is about).
And let me remind you, I replied to the original post about some issue it didn't seem right to me, then you came after ranting about small mortal minds...
22 - Steve
That's what's so interesting about the current debate about evolution. If it weren't for the atheists constantly suggesting that evolution removes the need for God (which it doesn't, it's quite compatible with a number of other religions actually), there would not be so much debate over intelligent design in the classroom.
23 - Sean Aqui
Bill, cool; then we agree. Evolution neither requires nor excludes God.
Steve, there are plenty of believers who say the same thing without goading from atheists. It's an equal opportunity misconception.
24 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Well Zingzing,
Looks like you sparked a debate after all. the faithists - atheists in this case - have come to crow their case. Were those the religious fanatics you were talking about, Zingzing?
25 - JP
Red, the left isn't all "religion intolerant." I respect this position as advocated here, particularly:
"There are gray areas, of course. Religion should not be discriminated against, either. Religion plays a role in our society; its contribution can be recognized and acknowledged by the government just like the government recognizes the contributions of other groups. But the emphasis should be on recognizing the contribution, not the religion. This, by the way, is why I generally support Bush's push to make faith-based organizations eligible for government grants. Religious groups should be treated just like everybody else; they should receive neither favorable nor unfavorable treatment merely because they are religious."
This post shows a rational and sane level of separation without an extreme fear or intolerance of religion. Nice work.