Poll: 56% of atheists find radical Christianity as threatening as radical Islam
posted at 12:10 pm on June 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Don’t look at me. Don’t look at Hitchens either, for that matter. Cross-section that 56 by political ideology and all will be revealed, I suspect.
Too bad I found this story on Saturday. It would have been good for 1,000 comments during the week.
Atheists and agnostics are distinct demographically from the active-faith segment. The no-faith audience is younger, and more likely to be male and unmarried. They also earn more and are more likely to be college graduates…
One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by atheists and agnostics in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as “active in the community” (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%). They are also more likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party.
One of the outcomes of this profile – and one of the least favorable points of comparison for atheist and agnostic adults – is the paltry amount of money they donate to charitable causes. The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500).
We’re 9% of the overall population — but 14% of 23-41-year-olds and 19% of 18-22-year-olds. And contrary to popular wisdom, those numbers don’t appear to decline significantly as people age. They’ve held relatively constant over the past 15 years. Exit question: Atheist takeover?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
Who cares?
repvoter on June 16, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Present company excluded of course, but they sound pretty damn selfish to me.
infidel4life on June 16, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Our town is building dunking chairs and wicker baskets as we speak.
Limerick on June 16, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Yet more evidence that a majority of atheists can’t be bothered to understand what they don’t believe.
Bryan on June 16, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Uh…how many radical Christianists have flown an airplane into a building lately?
What’s that? There’s no such thing as a Christianist? Never mind.
flipflop on June 16, 2007 at 12:20 PM
I find it very hard to take anything a atheist has to say about religion seriously. It’s kinda like putting travelers checks in your coffin, just in case you can take it with you.
Wade on June 16, 2007 at 12:23 PM
“56% of atheists”
Whats that? 40 people?
DwnSouthJukin on June 16, 2007 at 12:24 PM
“The typical no-faith American donated just $200″
See, this shows that this poll is a hoax: nobody in his right mind donates $200 year after year to charitable causes. Nobody.
Kim Hartveld on June 16, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Someone ought to make a satire of a Christian terrorist beheading video to show the absurdity of it. Have a bunch of Christians wearing masks and baclavas stand behind a kneeling atheist prisoner, before a large banner with the cross emblazoned on it… Have one of them read a proclamation or Papal Bull condemning the unbeliever to death, then use special effects to simulate the others cutting off the head of the victim while shouting, “Jesus is great!” Even the most block-headed moron will see that while such stupidity is so rare or nonexistent in today’s world as to be absurd… It is a constant and frequent reality coming to us out of the Muslim world.
Ronin11208 on June 16, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Happy to oblige.
wccawa on June 16, 2007 at 12:31 PM
“56% of atheists find radical Christianity as threatening as radical Islam”
Threatening? No. Repugnant? Yes.
Kim Hartveld on June 16, 2007 at 12:31 PM
My response to this ridiculous claim?
Fight stupidity with the Truth!
Take a look at this must see video! Disproving Islam in three words!
Click on the link and see a brilliant video of a young man disproving the religion of Islam.
Awesome!
HT: Christianity Watch
Christinewjc on June 16, 2007 at 12:31 PM
It(the poll atheists) shows that denial of their urges is tantamount to genocide to them. How dare someone dislike my lifestyle!
Limerick on June 16, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Moral equivalency.
Rode Werk on June 16, 2007 at 12:35 PM
These statistics are interesting:
An old article from The Guardian, written by an atheist:
Faith does breed charity
INC on June 16, 2007 at 12:43 PM
That’s really not surprising. I thought it would actually be more based on the point that Bryan made earlier in the comments.
vcferlita on June 16, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Gah – most of these people have to be very left leaning. They have somehow convinced themsleves that censoring nudity and profanity is akin to suiciding bombing and such. They have to be very young as well. The Daily Show – Colbert crowd, who listen to their alternative rock bands railing against the “religious right” and they lap it up.
Our current 18-22 year old crowd is pretty lacking. They care more about video games, tattoos, piercings, thongs, movies about young white chicks being tortured and killed…
I still want to know though, what exactly is “radical Christianity”?
Anyone?
reaganaut on June 16, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Not in any near future. Christianity alone has held strong for 2000 years. Funny though, how I’ve always held that religion is a personal “thing”…really individual relationships with self and God…but yet is used as a means to an end for societies too often.
If the percentage of athiests have remaind relatively constant for the last 15 years, what were the numbers prior to that?…say, around 1950? Or 1890?
JetBoy on June 16, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Radical Christianity would be anyone who believes in Christ, duh. You obviously haven’t listened to BJ Shay.
Rode Werk on June 16, 2007 at 12:55 PM
As a card carrying member of the Methodist Martyrs Brigade* all I can really do is close my eyes, shake my head and exclaim “oy vay!”
* Only one member so far…….
TwinkietheKid on June 16, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Yeah I never give to charity either. Don’t trust ‘em!
I don’t trust people who give to charity either, I believe they do it to ease their own consciences, not to really help anyone. On the other hand I’m the one that my mates turn to if they need real help, like borrowing sizeable sums of money, a roof over their heads etc. But that doesn’t show up in the statistics and doesn’t make us look as holy-as-thy religious do-gooder.
Aylios on June 16, 2007 at 12:58 PM
I consider myself agnostic… and I resent being lumped in with ATHEISTS.
I’m not here saying there is no God… I’m here saying that none of the religions, or man (yet) is smart enough to figure it out.
It would be interesting to see what percentage consider themselves truly Atheist, and see how they stack against agnostics…
Romeo13 on June 16, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Actually, I suspect that there are two very distinct and opposing kind of non-believer. The right-wing ones like us and the loony left type. The right-wing ones are in the distinct minority amongst the non-believers.
Aylios on June 16, 2007 at 12:59 PM
When Marie Claire interviewed Huckabee about mini-skirts and then followed it up with a question about burhkas, I got the sense this was the point they were shooting for as well.
CP on June 16, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Oh yes, I’ve heard of you. Any relation to the Methodist Brigade of Martyrs? Personally I belong to the New England Catholics People’s Front, not to be confused with the Catholic People’s Front of New England, who we are at war with.
reaganaut on June 16, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Not true. It would be accurate to describe such people as “secular” but not as atheists. Atheists are actually only a very small percentage of the population. There are plenty of people who are not religious but not atheist either, and who simply couldnt be bothered to ponder the issue of religion enough to even regard themselves as agnostic. Being an atheist is a lot more than a lack of belief, it is an affirmative disbelief, and the vast majority of that 9% lacks such conviction.
kaltes on June 16, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Happy to oblige.
wccawa on June 16, 2007 at 12:31 PM
As someone raised Missouri Synod, that was hilarious, thanks! I know there would always be some serious violence if a Baptist took some of our Runzas! Of course, the Baptists outnumbered us so I became one.
Centurion68 on June 16, 2007 at 1:07 PM
You know what the radicals in my church are doing this summer? They have organized groups to go out in the rural areas of Alabama to search for folks who lack the basic necessities, like a/c,intact roofing and running water. Then, those violent thugs are installing those necessities with funds collected from (gasp) churches. The only reason I would even bring this up is due to the absurdity of the results of this poll. There is no comparison.
tdau1997 on June 16, 2007 at 1:08 PM
This thread is being invaded by religious fundamentalists, time for the agnostic jihad to spring into action and start cutting heads.
Aylios on June 16, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Moreover, I think it leads to the argument that atheism is just a form of nihilism; where nothing means anything. And they just don’t care.
lorien1973 on June 16, 2007 at 1:12 PM
I second reaganaut’s question: what is radical Christianity? Can anyone name names? And what terrorist groups have been formed by these radical Christians?
Bill Ramey on June 16, 2007 at 1:13 PM
What?
All thirteen of them hate us?
::YAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaawn::
seejanemom on June 16, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Bwahahahaahaaa! SouthPark Rules!
techno_barbarian on June 16, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Very, very true. Cross section the 56% and you’ll find an anti Christian bias. Just mention stem cell research and watch them go into the anti-Christian boilerplate. Mention the fact that adult stem cell research is already treating dozens of diseases and makes embryonic stem cell research moot and their arguement is left naked like a plucked chicken.
I respect atheists that realize their freedom to be athiests is enhanced by the biblical roots of this nation, not in spite of it.
Theworldisnotenough on June 16, 2007 at 1:16 PM
All this poll proves is that 56% of atheists are as stupid as Rosie O’Donnel. Of course look at the bright side. That means 44% of atheists AREN’T as stupid as Rosie O’Donnell.
Joshua P. Allem on June 16, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Actually I was thinking of The Life of Brian, but that works too. I liked that episode. “My science is better than your science!”
Incidentally, I did manage to watch The Life of Brian without rioting or making a sign that read “Behead those who insult Christianity”. Go figure.
reaganaut on June 16, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Notice the blatent bias leading this off?
Translation: religious people are sheep in thrall to leaders who they obey uncritically.
Not willing to put out the personal effort to participate in the community is defined as “independent?”
“Lazy” or “totally self-absorbed” comes to mind, not “independent.”
Question: Do atheists actually pride themselves on not helping those less fortunate than themselves? Should they then absent themselves from all discussions on domestic and international humanitarian aid, having no “moral authority” to comment?
Hmmm?
Hope these young strapping atheists get some moral fiber before they attempt marriage and fatherhood. Need some meat there to be a solid, caring, sacrificing head of the family who has direction and a firm foundation to teach the wee ones so they grow well into productive citizens …
Oh wait a minute. This group doesn’t “marry”… being independent and all. Good thing it’s 78% of only 9% of the population or we’d be in demographic trouble.
naliaka on June 16, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Will the increasing numbers of atheists and agnostics create a religious vacuum? What are the principles that a faithless society would base its laws on? Is there an example of a faithless country, state or city to compare with? How many radical Christians exist and how are they defined? Do the people who define themselves as atheist or agnostic know the Christian faith as put forth in the Bible? How many of the people cited in the survey have been required to study anti-religious courses at college, and therefore have been indoctrinated against religion. Does indoctrination cause contempt prior to investigation of the Bible? In reality is it not more a fear of God and what the Bible says about His rightous judgement than Christians themselves that produce the threatening interperatation? If the Bible is true won’t it be terrible place when Jesus also known as The Prince of Peace is taken from the earth and the remaining people are cast into outer darkness and left here with the likes of a Caliphate one world government or much worse? If you don’t know jesus would you like to? Invite him into your heart today and pray a prayer of repentence which is a promise to be good. I beleive the Bible and The Lord has shown me that we are in the last days as we know them.
sonnyspats1 on June 16, 2007 at 1:23 PM
From my experience 100% of atheists judge others by a Judeo-Christian standard. Why can’t they come up with their own standard or code of behavior?
Mojave Mark on June 16, 2007 at 1:24 PM
I’m agnostic about atheists’ opinions.
Now jumping to the intellectual laziness of agnostics . . http://www.agnostic.org/ haven’t set up anything on their site.
- The Cat
MirCat on June 16, 2007 at 1:28 PM
BREAKING NEWS!!
82% OF CHRISTIANS FIND SELF-INDULGENT INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST ATHEISTS TO BE TEACHERS’ UNION MEMBERS, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, OR VANITY FAIR COLUMNISTS!!!
Oh crud. Somebody already said it. Hmmpph…
HerrMorgenholz on June 16, 2007 at 1:28 PM
And back to the “atheists have no morals” argument.
Anti-religious courses? I don’t know what type of cesspool you think college is, but the professors aren’t converting people to Atheism as they would Christianity had they been a priest in Church.
Anyways, I think the question is a bogus one. They aren’t asking whether or not radical Islam is more dangerous than radical Christianity, they’re asking whether or not people view them as a “threat.” Many people in this country don’t feel directly “threatened” by radical Muslims, and likewise with Christians in the government. Note–they aren’t asking which is a more dangerous threat, just whether or not they feel threatened.
Nonfactor on June 16, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Oh please! A radical Christian will try to convert an atheist. A radical Muslim will try and kill him.
Ellen on June 16, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Atheists don’t want to be held accountable for anything. Having morals and a sense of right and wrong might make them feel bad about themselves. It’s all about feelings right? And of course, me, me me…hence the lack of caring and compassion for those less fortunate and in need of charitable giving.
To compare Christians with radical Islam only shows their ignorance of the threat of radical Islam today.
katieanne on June 16, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Bwahahahaha! Look out, punks! In the decadent atheist future, we’re going to let women have easy access to abortion and permit homosexuals to get married. OH THE HORROR!
And if you thought that was good, wait until we cancel the non-profit status that churches enjoy. Bet a lot of churches will go out of business…
And that would be too bad. :)
Enrique on June 16, 2007 at 1:49 PM
As a member of The People’s Lutheran Justice Brigade (Pacific Division, West Coast Front, Missouri Synod, Reformed, Twice Removed), I am outraged at being lumped in with Islamists. As a result, I am going to bake a casserole and put on more coffee, kufr!!!
Ululululululu!!!
wccawa on June 16, 2007 at 1:49 PM
We do have our own standard. It’s basically the same as the Judeo-Christian one, except we’re not virgins when we get married.
Enrique on June 16, 2007 at 1:51 PM
As a Yooper with Lutheran family and friends, I find that absolutely brilliant, though I suppose I’d get it more than most eh?
I’d be more than happy to join the Methodist Martyr’s Brigade. Any ideas on how to proceed? I’m thinking of a Holy Basket Auction. Perhaps we could cook Pasties and sell them to the poor and needy? Or perhaps a Tent Meeting where we talk about the dignity of human life and the transformational power of Christ?
I was talking with friends in our 17-22 demographic, and usually when I talk to people who consider themselves “atheists” they just reveal themselves to be agnostics. I press them on whether or not they can be absolutely certain of their assertion and then just say they can’t possibly know. When I tell them that that’s agnosticism I get “agnosticism is for the weak.” You know, not the rational and intellectually honest… the weak. A lot of it has to do with Agnostics not writing a bunch of books and getting their names out I’d guess. Agnostics aren’t cool.
Seeing as professors can have sex, and don’t have people sing songs and distribute sacraments, you have a point. They don’t evangelize like a priest in Church. But if you’ve been in the Philosophy Department of your average university, I’d hazard to guess they are preaching anti-religious sermons. That’s what I get at my college. He’ll be talking about the problem of free will, or Brain in a Vat, and as an example talk about how there is no God and move on so quickly that there’s no way to call him up on it.
From what I hear the professor in question was studying to be a priest when at college someone told him he was taking the easy way out (now how ANYONE would consider faith an easy way out is beyond me, but that’s because I’ve read a deal of Bonhoeffer and Barth). So he became an atheist and since then been evangelizing in the classroom.
Even in the Religion Department we have agnostics and people of faith so liberal you might as well go back to God is Dead theology. And from what I’ve heard about seminary it ain’t over yet. Don’t underestimate the power of a professor to shape a young person. And don’t underestimate their willingness to do so.
Keljeck on June 16, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Damn the leftists screwing it up for the rest of us rational atheists. The active-faith people do deserve credit for being good about donating to charitable causes and helping the poor. However, I think that’s largely a result of having the means to do so. How many of the nation’s top 1% are atheists? Recurse from there… You can’t compare donations to charitable organizations without adjusting for income.
And for the typical theist response, from katieanne:
I have more morals than most of the religious people I’ve ever met, so go be self-righteous somewhere else, thanks.
Truly moral people do not need religion to give them morals.
Seixon on June 16, 2007 at 2:05 PM
There ya go again Allah! Set’n off wildfires on the weekend!
I Once heard an Christian artist say that he loved all types of Art no matter the religious or non religious beliefs of the Artist. Because the Christian Artist just loved creation. A gift that a nonbeliever has but doesn’t realize the source.
Drtuddle on June 16, 2007 at 2:07 PM
what is radical Christianity?
Here ya go.
Laura on June 16, 2007 at 2:10 PM
I joke with my kids that I do belong to a church… Its called Idon’tknowism…
Basic tenent? I don’t know, you really don’t KNOW either, but believe, so why are we killing each other over it?
I’ve studied the major religious works… and it boils down to one little problem for me..
God comes down, 2000 years ago, and talks to a Sheperd… or goat herding barbarian Warlord (a few hundred years later)… or… a Fat guy in the orient… and these people then write down what they interpret God meant… with little understanding of the world around them… or any natuaral philosophy or scientific knowledge…
When I explained things to my 3 year olds, I had to put things into a context a 3 year old would understand… I see the major religious writings in much the same light…
And then add in that they get modified, and changed, by people who were not there, and you start to get a handle on my problem with religions…
Agnostic… not atheist, and not anti religious…
Romeo13 on June 16, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Nonfactor on June 16, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Ha Ha What?! Its not a question of atheists not having morals. The question is where will you get the ideas to form laws. What is the basis of the contents of our existing Constitution and given the fact that there is no God doesn’t that mandate that an atheis run government totally scrap it and start from scratch?I’ll ignore the cesspool comment. You contradict yourself with the comparison between a professor and priest since the courses are mandatory. The bogus question you allude to has much credibility when you consider these courses refute the existence of any god and therefor render the Bible as irrelevant. Like I said contempt prior to investigation or if you prefer ignorance is bliss is a form of anti anything. Finally Non Factor Do you see any thing askew with the your assesment that atheists and agnostics are more threatened by Christians than Muslims. I think you already detect something is awry is the global reality of today.
sonnyspats1 on June 16, 2007 at 2:11 PM
assessment (sp)
sonnyspats1 on June 16, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I find radical Athiests more threatening than radical Islam and the legions of blood-thirsty radical Christians.
†
SilverStar830 on June 16, 2007 at 2:14 PM
56% of atheists find radical Christianity as threatening as radical Islam
First … what the hell is a radical Christian? Does simply being a fervent believer make one radical? I’ve yet to see roving bands of “radical” Christians forcibly converting non-believers, or just outright killing them.
Second … radical islam is non-negotiable. You either submit and convert or die.
How one can even begin to think that Christianity, whether it be termed “radical” or not can be comparable to islam is senseless.
darwin on June 16, 2007 at 2:16 PM
If you’d read Revelations the answer is “Yes!” Big Brother!
Drtuddle on June 16, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Believe it or not there have been many philosophers who haven’t used a god to justify why something is “good” or “bad;” I won’t try to explain all their arguments for them, but I’ll set you in the right direction. Hobbes posed the “state of nature” question leading to Locke to revise it in favor of democracy not monarchy, then came Madison and Jefferson who took Locke’s ideas and wrote them into the Federalist Papers and Constitution. Google is your friend.
Where does it say they are “more threatened” or that radical Christianity is any more dangerous than radical Islam? All the question asks is whether or not they believe they are threatened by radicals of a certain religion. People can feel equally threatened by both but believe radical Islam is more dangerous than radical Christianity.
Nonfactor on June 16, 2007 at 2:26 PM
That question can be taken in different directions, depending on the answers to the questions What is god?, What is an atheist?, and What is takeover? Here are some possibilities to consider.
* In our time, the decline of one religion in Europe, and the accompanying ascendancy of Europe’s “atheists” and agnostics, seem to have prepared the way for the ascendancy of muslims.
* We need to examine the religion and the atheists that lost Europe to muslims, and we need to consider avoiding whatever flaws they may have had.
* The seemingly trite saying that atheists do worship or strive toward something may be true and may be worth reconsidering at intervals, again and again.
* Whatever causes creatures to worship something or striving toward something seems more truly divine than the object of worship or striving.
* It seems possible for a god to cause creatures to worship or strive toward its opposite. In such a case, one could choose to cooperate with the god.
* A “takeover” by a thoughtful “atheist” might lead to a great flowering of true religion.
* Preponderance in political power by less careful “atheists” wouldn’t be a “takeover,” really; it would just be a mess.
Kralizec on June 16, 2007 at 2:26 PM
IMHO, the atheists who avoid charitable work do so because the spirit of God touches them when the did do a kindness and they realized some perspective into their self-indulgence. This shows them that they are at their core selfish and that has led them to hate religion for pointing it out.
And faithful people don’t NEED to exorcise their demons by helping others. They do it because it’s the right thing to do. It’s called EMPATHY.
csdeven on June 16, 2007 at 2:52 PM
I have often been labeled that way by non-believers and even some nominal Christians at my blog and message board.
I think that the difference between the perception of a “regular” Christian and a “radical” one is the fact that those perceived as “radical” believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth and morality (vs. the “my truth” of moral relativism in secular society). Such Christians truly believe the following and desire to live by it:
The last subject (about the Bible being truth without any mixture of error) often bothers people the most; especially when a Christian believer speaks out against such things as abortion, homosexuality, any sexual sin (i.e. porn, adultery, fornication, promiscuity, child molestation etc.), against euthansia, against embryonic stem cell research (which doesn’t work – adult stem cells have done much more to help in ailments)as well as other social issues that the radical (there’s that word again!) liberal left embraces.
The idea that Christians should “leave their faith” at home and not express it in public is a big one, too.
When a Christian actually agrees with the secular media (like the liberal left ideology that abortion is a “necessary” and even an “honorable” thing (unlike being pro-life which is considered evil in their eyes); homosexual behavior is to be accepted without question, celebrated wholeheartedly (or you’re a bigot and intolerant), and taught to children without parental permission; the “live and let live” attitude regarding any (and every) sexual perversion out there; and the list goes on.
Christinewjc on June 16, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Define morals. Truly rational people need a foundation for their morals. Whether it’s rational self interest, a will to power, or revelation. As we’ve seen in history morality is not the defining characteristic of humanity. If it was there wouldn’t be a need for war.
I have no problems with agnostics. I find them to be intellectually honest people who lack a faith. I have a greater respect for them than atheist, whom I percieve to have an anti-faith, which is even more irrational than a faith in itself. If anyone clearly looks at the situation, we don’t know at all. If it wasn’t for my faith and experience, I’d be an agnostic too. It’s a question that cannot be answered intellectually or rationally, when we go that route we end in agnosticism. Obviously because we don’t agree.
Keljeck on June 16, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I wouldn’t touch this thread with a ten foot poll.
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 16, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Oops. Didn’t finish that last statement:
When a Christian actually agrees with the secular media (like the liberal left ideology that abortion is a “necessary” and even an “honorable” thing (unlike being pro-life which is considered evil in their eyes); homosexual behavior is to be accepted without question, celebrated wholeheartedly (or you’re a bigot and intolerant), and taught to children without parental permission; the “live and let live” attitude regarding any (and every) sexual perversion out there; and the list goes on; it is then that Christians are “acceptable” and regarded as “nice” and “friendly” and not radical.
Jesus warns us that speaking out against sin in this world will not be popular. However, the true sign that we are “not to be like the world” is evident in those who follow God’s Word.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Luk 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.
Luk 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Jhn 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.
1Jo 3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
Paul reiterates this:
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8
Does this make me a “radical” Christian?
Christinewjc on June 16, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Yes, truly rational people need a foundation for their morals, such as logic and common sense – not a religion. Of course the defining trait of humanity is not morality – most people are weak-minded and are easy prey for immoral action. It’s far easier to be immoral than it is to be moral, and most people, like electric current, seek the path with least resistance. This is also the case with religion – a set of beliefs doled out to answer every hard question about one’s own existence so one doesn’t have to struggle with the meaning of life.
It’s the difference between regurgitating talking points and using your own mind.
Seixon on June 16, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Does the word ‘find’ suggest some sort of revealed evidence? It’s my understanding that atheists do not rely on faith when purporting a truth so they must have something concrete to back up their “finding”, right?
geckomon on June 16, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Seixon,
What about discovering the meaning of life through God’s Word, the Bible? Couldn’t that be considered a logical and common sense approach?
After all, Jesus Christ asks each of us, “Who do you say that I am?”
Answering that question can help one find out the meaning of life.
Christinewjc on June 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Geckomon wrote:
That’s a great point!
IMHO, they already know about the truth, but refuse to acknowledge it and thus choose to reject it.
2 Cr 4:6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Christinewjc on June 16, 2007 at 3:23 PM
So for you right and wrong is what’s rational and logical at the time? Then what’s rational and what’s logical? And in which cases would a rational based morality be different than a “divinely” based one?
You don’t expect me to take this seriously do you? Read some Barth, Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, John Wesley, and the Bible, then tell me how religion, particularly christianity, is a set of beliefs dolled out to answer every hard question about one’s own existence so one doesn’t have to struggle with the meaning of life.
It is harder to have a faith. Clearly and demonstrably so. Atheism is easier than Religion. It is a crutch for the weak, to borrow a term I see used. The use of this argument by atheists and agnostics alike show their misunderstanding of religion as a whole, and the demands it makes. It is both a crutch and a cross at the same time.
Keljeck on June 16, 2007 at 3:29 PM
What is logical and common sense about discovering the meaning of life through a book written by a certain group of people a few thousand years ago? Might as well read the 9/11 Commission Report and discover the meaning of life.
The Bible does have common sense and logical arguments in it, but none you would not be able to discover all on your own if you, to quote a theist, use what God gave you.
Seixon on June 16, 2007 at 3:30 PM
I am not putting forth a good or bad basis for a society. I am questioning what the atheist/agnostic tenents of an effective longlasting constitution would be. I can see we have been schooled differently. I was taught that the democratic form of society had its roots in Greece and was refined in the Roman government. Your proposal of the evolution of philosophy that has been theorized and passed down to Madison and Jefferson is the bedrock of the civilization in which we live to me seems like a house built on sand. You are right in assessment that the constitution is inspired but wrong in the source from the inspiration came. The fact that Christian based theology is unwavering in its beliefs is proof that the combination of it and the democratic models aforementioned are the winning combination that has sustained the people of this nation throughout its history. Pertaining to the ‘more threatened’ statement I will add that radical muslims are not in this country and if they are they are in prison or in underground cells. The Christian population is out and about and in the government and such. To equate the threat of these set of circumstances as an equal threat answers your retort of “all the question asks…” PS Injecting caustic barbs into this exchange demonstrates my point of being indoctrinated. Garbage in garbage out?
sonnyspats1 on June 16, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Um, yes? I would sure hope you’d decide what’s right and wrong based on logic and rational thought rather than religious decrees. Many times the Biblical and rational moralities will be the same, but not always. This is basically an argument about using your own mind rather than doing what a book tells you to do.
Ahaha! It’s harder to have faith? How?? You have your answers for everything! Who created you, who’s watching over you, how the Earth came to be, etc, etc. You don’t have to burden your mind with any of the fundamental tough questions that face humans because your Bible has given you all the answers that you can repeat ad naseum instead of thinking.
Having faith is only harder than not having it if you’re an immoral person and a hypocrite who can’t stick to the gospel you’re supposed to be practicing.
Atheism is a crutch for the poor? Please tell me that’s not what you meant.
Seixon on June 16, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Actually, I take part of that back, it is hard to have faith, but that’s only because the Bible is so full of it that it becomes a task for people who follow it slavishly to defend it, and their own beliefs, against reality.
Seixon on June 16, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Christinewjc wrote:
Go on, Christinewjc, I dare you to bless the jihadists and their many useful idiots from the Left and tell me how much you love them.
Oh, and swear on the Bible that you really really mean it.
FierceGuppy on June 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM
I have a friend who is a missionary to Equatorial Guinea in Africa. He and his family gave up their comfortable life in America to go Africa and work on translating the Bible into the people’s native language which is Fang. It’s pronounced /f??/. All the while suffering from malaria, heat,humidity,and Black Mambas in their house. Now, the people in this region speak Spanish/Fang/French. This area was a strategic place that the Spanish colonized to block the French. I think Spanish language is unique only to equatorial Guinea in Africa. At their jobs the natives use Spanish but when their home they like to speak Fang. So these missionaries, which includes my friends, have meticulously created the Fang alphabet through Spanish lettering and slowly are translating the New Testament. They translated a small section and passed it around for people to read. The natives were so proud to understand and see something written in their native language. Now my missionary friends are pretty “Radical” I would say. I consider them my heroes.
A tara dzam!
Drtuddle on June 16, 2007 at 3:59 PM
This headlines means: only 44% of atheists aren’t morons.
profitsbeard on June 16, 2007 at 4:01 PM
I wouldn’t mind that, even as a religious person. Atheists tend to lump all religions together, which means that I’m less likely to be specifically discriminated against.
Well, consider that this was a poll of Americans. Islam isn’t in power here. It can’t be that much of a threat. An atheist in Saudi Arabia would probably have a different answer.
And of course there are much more fundamentally frightening things than the possibility of sporadic acts of unlawful violence.
Mark Jaquith on June 16, 2007 at 4:08 PM
No, we (I?) don’t like the Methodist Brigade of Martyrs nor the Popular Methodist Martyrs Corps. We didn’t like the beer they served at the meetings. Splitters!!!
Which is what I was thinking of too. Us radicals do think a like don’t we?!?
TwinkietheKid on June 16, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Two problems you have. First of all you assume that people don’t make a decision to follow said book, they are using their minds. Second of all you assume that there is no interpretation. A clear look at the history of Christianity shows that indeed people DO use their minds and quite frequently.
And perhaps I didn’t voice my question properly, in which case would a rational morality differ with a divinely inspired one, looking at actions? Looking at the Bible, where would a rational person disagree, regarding morality?
You have a very minimal understanding of Christianity. Where did God come from? What is God? Is there Free Will? What is the meaning of life? Why is there evil? Why did God save us? Why is God preoccupied with us? Can we ever know God? Why did God create the world? Why doesn’t God simply reveal himself? How did the Cross save us? When will the world end? What will happen to people who were never told the Gospel? What is the precise character of Christ? Is the eucharist really Jesus? What’s the nature of the sacraments?
These are all questions widely debated within the Christian community, and have been for at least 1000 years. Some people have answers, other people disagree. Christianity doesn’t answer everything, it questions everything. It is the light by which we see, it is not the objects.
Then you have the problem of martyrdom. It is not easy to be chastised for a faith, but Christians have suffered throughout the ages. How was that any easier? I go to a college with professors that have routinely lambasted my strongest beliefs, how does that make it any easier? Christianity is NOT an easy way out.
That is not true at all. Thomas Aquinas thought, Augustine thought, Luther thought, Kierkegaard thought, Justin Martyr thought, Tertullian thought, Gregor Mandel thought, Pascal thought, Bacon thought, Christianity is not a thought blocker. It is a thought blocker to say there is no truth in religion! Atheism is a thought blocker. Suddenly whole potential answers must be thrown away.
I cannot believe that you suggest I am merely a philosophical automaton, with Bibleversus imputed. Read any work and you have to think about it. If you read The Great Gadsby or Dubliners you need to think about the meanings and what’s going on. Same so with the Bible. And there are differences in interpretations, and we fight and bicker over them. It doesn’t silence our minds, it gives us food. Christian Theology is a very lively science.
No, I said it’s a crutch for the weak. And I do mean that. And all you are doing is serving to prove it. You can’t concieve that maybe, just maybe, I could be right. You can’t conceive that maybe just maybe, there is a higher power. So instead you laugh, and in your intellectual superiority proclaim me to have it easy because I know all of the answers. You put religion down for its percieved lack of rationality, when not even looking at its history. A history of thought and intellectual struggle with the mystery of God.
Do you even know what Transubstantiation is?
Keljeck on June 16, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Not really, profitsbeard. It just means that few if any radical Christians still exist. I mean you guys don’t hang or burn witches anymore, nor are you sack cloth wearing ascetics. Many of you even realize that what Jesus thought belonged to Cesar was not Cesar’s but yours through honest work.
FierceGuppy on June 16, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Forget Jesus. Lindsay Perigo’s moral code is way better.
#1 — Reverence for the human mind. It is our species’ means of survival. It is fully competent to grasp reality, to form conclusions, to discover & invent. Training it is what education is for. Treasure it
accordingly.
FierceGuppy on June 16, 2007 at 4:31 PM
#2 — Respect for each other’s autonomy. Each person has free will by dint of having his own mind. Leave each other free to exercise it. Don’t try to gain anything from others by force or fraud. That is a negation of their mind – and yours. If you want something from someone, ask politely; if refused, accept graciously. Use force only against those who have first used it against you.
FierceGuppy on June 16, 2007 at 4:32 PM
#3 — Honesty. Put another way — respect for reality. It is what it is, & faking cannot change it. The fakery will come back to haunt you. Realise though, that you do not owe the truth to those who use force against you.
#4 — Independence. Learn the discipline of discovering the truth for yourself. Do not accept a proposition simply because others do. 90% of people are 100% wrong about most things. Go where the evidence points, regardless of convention.
FierceGuppy on June 16, 2007 at 4:32 PM
#5 — Courage & integrity. Having formed your convictions, be prepared to stand by & defend them in the face of adversity & name-calling. You will probably be labelled a crackpot, an extremist, anti-social & selfish. Wear the taunts of the mob, when you know the mob is wrong, as a badge of honour.
#6 — Admiration for greatness. At the same time, savour the extraordinary things that your fellows have achieved, from the most exquisite of creature comforts to the most sublime of symphonies. Acquaint yourself with the gods of science, of philosophy, of medicine, of music & art & literature, who have walked among us, & stride with them to their exalted stratospheres.
FierceGuppy on June 16, 2007 at 4:33 PM
#7 — Self-love. Remember that to say “I love you” you must first know how to say the “I.” This has to be earned. It is not the phony self-love of a braggart, slavishly dependent on the applause & attention of others; rather it is deserved pride in your own actual achievements. Avoid especially the sickly modesty that others would have you observe whereby you would credit them with your accomplishments. Earn the right to be proud of yourself, & stand tall.
#8 — Savour the happiness that this will bring you. This is not a temporary euphoria induced by a stroke of good fortune or the smoking of a joint. Rather it is the deep, unassailable, quiet ecstasy to be derived from pursuing your chosen values & achieving them. Let this happiness be your purpose.
FierceGuppy on June 16, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Part of the problem with the fear and loathing by liberals and so called atheists of Bible believing Christians is the negative perception presented by Hollywood. Not every Christian leader is a Elmer Gantry, con man or hypocritical minister as portrayed in the media and even print such as the Scarlet Letter. Sure there are a lot of fakes and counterfeits, but if their is a counterfeit there must also be the real thing. There are no counterrfeit three dollar bills.
To me, the fundamental Christian message of liberation in Christ is the only antidote to fundamental Islam. I’ve seen numerous time Muslims freed from the bondage in Islam to the freedom in Christ. Islam simply can’t compete with Christianity if there is a freedom to consider both sides with no threat of violence.
Texas Mike on June 16, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Keljeck,
Of course people can use their minds to choose to do what the Bible says, but they did not come up with doing so of their own mind. No doubt there is interpretation, which is where all the thinking is wasted. Instead of just thinking rationally and logically on your own, you are thinking about how to square what the Bible says with reality, or how to interpret the Bible in whichever way compliments your own agenda.
I have no idea, having never read the Bible.
You’ll notice that all of these questions have the existence of God as their premise, and God as their central theme. Instead of contemplating something rational like why humans are here on Earth, you’re contemplating all the ways in which your God seemingly has screwed you over and the ways in which the Bible is completely bull.
These are not the fundamental questions for a human being, because they all revolve around God, a being for which there exists no evidence of existing.
It questions everything? Um, no, it doesn’t, it only questions why the Gospel doesn’t always reflect reality.
Yes, poor little you, you live in a nation where 90% of people believe in God like you. Christians have suffered through the ages? Oh, yes, and atheists haven’t? Har-dee-har-har.
Oh, I’m sure they thought, but as you just demonstrated, they probably mostly thought about how to make God and Christianity work with reality, much like a Truther tries as best he can to make his 9/11 conspiracy theory seem credible.
I never said there is no truth in religion, and why must whole potential answers be thrown away? Seems like your ability to defend yourself is breaking down having to resort to strawmen and blanket assertions.
While you’re bickering over how God said this and that, and what he meant, the rest of us are bickering over how we actually got here. Apparently you don’t see that you’re being completely distracted from what really matters.
Eh, theology isn’t science, thanks.
I’ve got a few million blacks and latinos who would beg to differ. Religion is so strong with black families in the US mainly due to the fact that a good many black people are struggling and God provides them with the (false) hope they need. Instead of dealing with reality and trying to come up with a solution, you pray and appeal to God to help you.
This is completely nonsensical. A Truther could say the same thing, and it would be equally moronic. Atheism is a crutch for the weak because I scoff at your belief in something for which there exists absolutely no evidence? Allllrighty then.
I would laugh if you vigorously contended that Santa Clause existed as well, would that make me or you weak?
Intellectual struggle with the mystery of God. Tell me, what is intellectual about struggling with the mystery of something that has never shown itself to exist? Isn’t that exactly the opposite of intellectual, such as believing in Santa Clause, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Tooth Fairy?
You’re basically saying that it’s intellectual for Truthers to bicker with each other over whether it was a missile or a Global Hawk that crashed into the Pentagon.
No. Is there a reason for me to? From a quick look in a dictionary, I think not.
Seixon on June 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM
As a Christian myself, I’ve discovered in my debates with the occasional atheist that there are 2 kinds of atheists:
Type 1 is honest about what they believe and they have come to their present conclusions based upon the research and evidence that they believe they have. In other words, they’ve used logic and reason mixed with their own observations and can’t help but come to the conclusions that they have. Type 1 uses logic and reason and is therefore not threatened by Christianity. Type 1 is in a pursuit for truth about who we are, why we’re here, where we came from, how we got here and where we’re headed. And like I said, they’re presently atheist because their pursuit of truth has brought them to the conclusions they currently hold.
Type 2 is dishonest about what they believe and choose atheism because they WANT to believe there is no God. They WANT to believe their is no afterlife. Type 2 doesn’t use logic or reason and is not concerned about the truth. I believe it’s the Type 2 atheist that builds the 56% who “say” they find radical Christianity as threatening as radical Islam.
Unfortunately, I’ve also discovered this same Type 1 and Type 2 pattern to be among Christians also.
Joshua P. Allem on June 16, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Joshua,
I think that’s an astute observation that can be applied to humanity as a whole. There are those who dare think for themselves and base their views on rational, logical, and critical thought. Then there are those who follow what others say and will do anything just to keep on believing what was said.
Unfortunately, I cannot see how those of faith can be seen as the former completely, since they rely on… faith, not logic.
Seixon on June 16, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Christinewjc wrote:
What is written in that Bible verse (and said by Jesus himself)is exactly what was done to him as he faced the cross. He could have called down legions of angels to “rescue” him from that cross, but he didn’t. He willingly died on that cross for you, for me, for all of humanity.
He showed us the way to salvation. He did so in the midst of the worst persecution we could imagine. Anything and everything that I could suffer would pale in comparison.
When I see the current enemies of radical Islam, I think about the brainwashing (actually, dirtying!) they have been driven to at the youngest ages. In the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, they showed young girls chanting “jihad,” “death to Israel,” and “death to America.” They are taught such horrible evils at such young ages that it would take a miracle to transform their minds. The only One who can do this is Jesus. The knowledge, teachings and power to transform are of Jesus Christ.
Texas Mike said it well:
Christinewjc on June 16, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Texas Mike,
Did you see this video, Disproving Islam in 3 words yet? I’d love your opinion!
Christinewjc on June 16, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Several have asked:
I’ll give you examples, but first a disclaimer: I think the idea that radical Christianity is more dangerous than radical Islam in this day and age to be ridiculous, in both incidence and tendency.
That said, the easy example is the oft-cited Irish Republican Army.
The Serbs were fairly radical in both their Christian identification (crucifixes on their bandoliers) and actions when they slaughtered Bosnian Muslims in the pogroms of the 90’s.
there is the role of Christian churches in the Rwandan genocide:
And of course, the Croatian Catholic clergy’s support of the vile Ustache regime during WWII, including the support of forcible conversions.
It’s important to note that in all these examples, there were Christians of character who tried to do the right thing, just as there were those who committed vile acts in the name of Christianity.
To claim that Christianity is a less violent force in the world than radical Islam today is both rational and relatively obvious.
To claim that there are no or have not been any violent Christian extremists (today and in relatively recent history) is wishful thinking, in my opinion.
BillINDC on June 16, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Ya know, I have no expertise on what makes a person an atheist or an agnostic; therefore, I appreciate it if you’d tell me what you’re basing this assertion on; either you’re own expertise or someone else’s. Otherwise I’ll take it as your own opinion and (dis)regard it accordingly.
baldilocks on June 16, 2007 at 5:40 PM
I would have to disagree. The rational, critical thinking Christian uses logic to prove for himself that the Bible is what it claims to be. The Bible proves itself to be authentic once it’s been fully read and studied. I don’t believe God would be so blind as to spend thousands of years creating his message to the Earth via the Bible and then not also supply proof that the message is actually from Him. I’m not gonna get into all that here, it would take up the rest of my Saturday!
But a verse in the Bible says “You shall KNOW the truth, and the truth shall make you free” KNOWING and BELIEVING are two different things.
I can only speak for myself but I don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God by blind faith. It was proven to me using sound logic, reason, critical thought, evidence, etc… I don’t blindly believe the Bible is the Word of God. I KNOW the Bible is the Word of God.
Since I have no doubt that the Bible is accurate, then the areas of Scripture that are harder to accept are where faith comes into play. For example: I have no proof that there was ever a great worldwide flood. But I DO have proof that the informing source of that account is realiable.
Joshua P. Allem on June 16, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Talk to a Christian about it once in a while, you’ll be surprised. This is a very stereotypical and bigoted assumption.
Then on what grounds do you judge it? You sound like Harry Reid.
Because assuming God’s introduces questions. Questions require thought. Unlike the minimal thought required in atheism, once God is rejected things become arbitrary. Bleaker, but arbitrary. And so to clarify I’m not going for the Athiests have no morals argument, I’m saying that the morals Atheists have are decided for various reasons by a society, not because they are necessarily absolutely right or absolutely wrong.
And how do you know this, never having read it? Doesn’t it seem highly irrational to make such statements on a book you have never read? You are coming off not only bigoted, but hypocritical.
Perhaps the fundamental questions for a human being DO revolve around God. But you can’t suppose that. You have placed in your head the atheist thought blocker, sheltering you from such questions. It’s a crutch for the weak.
And how do you know this, not having read the Bible? The Gospel message, questions everything. It’s not the door in itself, it is the door opener. For now we know there is a God, and we know he cares enough to die, but what does this mean? Where do we go from here? And is the meaning to… ___.
It was an example, why did you make it about me? FOLLOWING is the example including me. This is stating that Christianity is not always easy to consider, in fact it hardly is unless you don’t think. Atheists have been killed, by non christians. No true Christian would, and I’m sorry to hear that is the case.
First of all, I didn’t mention all theologians, if you had read it. Though I’m guessing you skimmed looking at your response, or perhaps you just didn’t know the people I was talking about. Kierkegaard was a Christian, and dealt with those topics, but he was also the father of Existentialism and a philosopher. Mendel was a monk who founded Genetics. Bacon… do I have to explain that? Pascal… need I explain that either?
Second of all it is true that Christianity seems to conflict with rationality. It is not by rationality that we arrive at Christianity, it is through revelation and faith. I do not attempt to hide this fact. And from your point of view it may seem like some divine trutherism. However from our side what it is is making sense out of the revelation we know, and we know it by faith.
You reject there is a God, thus rejecting the premise of religion. If a God is rejected there is no further truth to be found. It’s not a blanket assertion. If there is no God, you could be rejecting the possiblity 2+2 could be 4.
No. Read any of our evolution threads on Hot Air. We are bickering over that… in fact that IS one of the controversies in the Christian Community.
By what definition? Here’s the one Mirriam Webster gives:
Oh…
I think you have the best answer.
Tell me where I said faith didn’t benefit people, or wasn’t usefull. I said that it’s harder than atheism. Actually what I said about Christianity is that it’s both a Cross and a Crutch. They aren’t rejecting any reality, obviously if they survive. They are clinging to an even greater reality through faith. And some of them not even that. And who are the people who ARE helping them? Most of them are people of faith. With the false hope yadda yadda yadda.
No, it’s a crutch for the weak because you can’t concieve of the possiblity of a God. And it’s hard to believe it, I don’t doubt it. It brings out horrifying possiblities and forces us under his dominion. And I reject your position that there is absolutely no evidence. I have the evidence in that I have witnessed him in my own life. I have accepted the historical revelation and felt a strange warming of my heart and didn’t need a mentos.
To quote Christopher Hitchens, “I’m tiring of this.” You can’t possibly prove that assertion, all that leads to is more contention. You say he has never shown himself to exist, and I reject. I say he has shown himself to exist in the Bible, his inspired word. I say he has shown himself to exist in Christ, an historical figure who died on the Cross and rose. I say he has shown himself in other people and in myself through my experience. Other than the person of Christ the rest rely on faith. And faith is something I cannot prove. All I can prove is that you can have faith. All I can prove is that Atheism is at fault and that agnosticism is a much preferable system of thought because we can’t know, you should know that. You can’t disprove my contentions, but I can’t convince you of them either because they are highly personal. There is an argument, which means we don’t know.
And you’re basically saying that it’s foolishness to have this conversation because we can’t prove there are other people out there.
Then I see no reason to discuss with you any further. If you had read the Bible this could go someplace. If you had an understanding of the history of Christianity, then we could talk. However you resort to memes. “Christianity is a Crutch!” “Bible is bull!” “If God exists why doesn’t he show himself!” You resort to self contradiction, you resort to hypocracy. You become religiously committed to an anti-faith, not through any rationality, but out of concieted bigotry. And an anti-faith cannot be proven rationally. Which is your ultimate hypocracy.
(By the way Transubstantiation is the belief that Jesus is fully and truly present in the Eucharist, and a central tenant of Catholicism, as well as a major contention between Catholicism and various Protestant denominations.)
Keljeck on June 16, 2007 at 5:48 PM
This discussion of morals is interesting. Here’s soem food for thought:
Seixon
Which of the following do you feel is not relevent to universal human conduct for successful, cooperating societies?
1. Love God with all your soul, your heart and your mind
2. Have no other gods before Him
3. Do not use the name of God in vain
4. Observe the Sabbath, work 6 days and rest the seventh
5. Honor your father and mother
6. You shall not commit murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not give faslse testimony
10. You shall not covet anything of your neighbor’s
Now, to keep it simple, Jesus was asked which was the greatest commandment. He replied that all ten are summed up in these two:
1. Love God
2. Love your neighbor
Now, what is your opinion of this African practice?
Upon the death of the father, his relations are permitted to descend on the widow and children and relieve them of all tangible property, to the point of leaving them destitute. The widow may further be subjected to bizarre and disgusting rituals to determine her innocence of her husband’s death. Destitute widows end up as beggers, and rarely are able to remarry, considered to be bad luck. Mortality of widows and orphans is significantly higher than the general population due to more pathetic circumstances.
To counter tribal arguments that it’s customary practice, Christians defend the widows and their orphans because of what is written in the Bible:
Aid the widow and orphan in their affliction. This would be a corollary to the commandment: “love your neighbor as yourself/do unto others as you would want done to you.”
Widows, orphans, Untouchables, all the “scum” of the earth as specified by their fellow citizens, have always found dignity and support in Christianity.
This all becomes much more intriguing and relevent when one is on the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man.
naliaka on June 16, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Interestingly, you didn’t include the next sentence in the article:
Personally, being a committed capitalist and basically an Objectivist, I have a hard time getting excited at the thought of giving to ANY charity in today’s USA. Over the years I have contributed to Doctors Without Borders and to Accion International (a microlending agency) and to the Red Cross after 9/11, but for the most part this country is overflowing with coercively-funded government, as well as charitable, options for the poor. I’m very curious to see what the political breakdown is between non-charitable atheists and the charitable ones.
(Eh, I’m not that curious. I really only care about what I believe & can defend. :-)
JennyP on June 16, 2007 at 6:02 PM
As an agnostic, I don’t really have a dog in this fight. But based on the historical example of Communism, it’s awfully hard for me to escape the conclusion that if you really want a high body count, put the atheists in charge. The sum total of the historical excesses of Christianity are a drop in the bucket compared to 20th century Communism. Sure, the vast majority of atheists don’t want to kill people by the millions, but the exceptions to the rule sure skew the averages.
ReubenJCogburn on June 16, 2007 at 6:08 PM
PMFJI…
Do you REALLY believe that it takes an belief in a supernatural Authority Figure to see that this practice is fundamentally unfair???
So Christian missionaries, using the rationale of some Bible verse, convince villages to stop the practice of destroying the lives of widows & orphans. Great. But hardly self-evidently convincing to someone who’s not an illiterate peasant villager, is it?
JennyP on June 16, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »