My avid-atheist wife just had her monthly anti-religion letter to the editor published in our local newspaper, the Salem (Oregon) Statesman Journal.
Actually, her letter was published twice on the opinion page in the print edition -- yesterday and today. I'm tempted to call that a miracle, a sign from God tbat She is pleased with Laurel's message. (But for obvious reasons I'll resist that temptation.)
Here's what Laurel said. The paper titled her letter, "Why community must not rely on the Bible for social and moral progress."
Most social and moral progress in Western civilization has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times, the first to speak out for prison reform, humane treatment of the mentally ill, abolition of capital punishment, women’s right to vote, death with dignity for terminally ill, and the right to choose contraception and abortion have been freethinkers. They were also the first to call for ending slavery.
Many religious people owned slaves, and the Bible justifies slavery in both the New and Old Testaments. In fact the Bible calls for horrific punishments for many things that today would be seen as horribly barbaric.
Most people who cherish the Bible pick and choose what they take from it, and ignore or aren’t aware of the parts they don’t like. They believe the various rationalized interpretations that religious leaders have preached over the eons. Although the Bible is supposedly the “word of God”, it was written by flawed humans in ancient times.
The Bible does not apply to our current times. It does not provide highly civilized moral guidance for modern times. It is those free from religion who have helped our society become more humane.
Laurel Hines
Salem
So far there are 67 comments on her letter. One is from my wife. Here's what Laurel said:
I rarely comment on my letters because all I can hope to do with the letters is provide food for thought. It is very difficult to crack the entrenched beliefs of those with the "brain virus" of religion. Facts and arguments rarely penetrate all the rationalism, and long held beliefs that people in the hold of religion grasp onto with all their might (even unconsciously).
Research shows, however, that most people who finally break free of the grasp of religion do so in a long slow process of bits and pieces of facts that fit together in their mind (brain) with enough questions to cause penetration of the rationalization about what in reality makes no sense. Most people, however, prefer to give too little thought to religion to question it, because they want to believe so bad.
But what they don't realize, is that once a person breaks free of religious belief, they look back and wonder why they ever believed such things, like an adult looking back at firm beliefs about Santa or an imaginary friend.
My main complaint about religion is all the wars, persecution, condemnation and separation it has caused over the eons. If the world survives to long enough for humans to become enlightened enough to find a more uniting and more rational belief system (maybe Humanism), and gives up the ancient religions, the future humans will look back at the current religions and see them as archaic as the belief in the sun as a god, or the many other people, idols, or gods who have been worshiped.
And yes, I currently fear for our Constitutional separation of Church and State, which is currently being threatened (but is in the Bill of Rights).
As one of those who commented far more extensively than I ought to have, I am interested in the nature of the comments. There are essentially two threads, with rebuttals to each. The first thread damns Laurel as a liberal. Being liberal, nothing whatsoever that she says is true. This person has three answers: to agree, to vilify, and when truly put in a corner, to remain silent. He is the face of 21st century fascism.
The second is a born again type. He plays fast and loose with language, using words in ways that no dictionary of etymology would recognize. He admits to having supported the killing of babies before he was born again, for example. And having been reborn, he sees no merit in reading anything that would question his faith.
I've downloaded all of the comments, and they run to more than 20 pages. I save them because the themes from the usual suspects are seldom original and it is easy to pick out an appropriate rebuttal, refine, and polish it and then post it.
The two threads (fascist and evangelical) represent commentators who have lost their individuality to their message. They are the message; they have been subsumed by the message. Toying with them is a way to understand how the extremist mind works.
Rebuttal to them is mostly reasoned and thoughtful. They seek to be vilified in the way they choose to vilify, preach to, or demean and have trouble with mature criticism.
Rebuttal did not imply that we entirely supported everything Laurel wrote; each had some point where what we thought we might differ, but the differences were presented in a starkly contrasting manner to the sad anti-intellectualism of these usual suspects. These are people who would destroy the Bill of Rights in order to preserve the Bill of Rights.
These are people for whom what they believe, is true. This inversion of the process of determining truth is what leads to tyranny.
Posted by: Richard van Pelt | June 02, 2017 at 12:22 PM
A simple count of the deaths under the Atheists Stalin, Hitler and Robespierre tops 25 million, which dwarfs the available figures for all of history's accounts of Holy wars and inquisitions.
Atheism and formal religion compete with each other for sheer barbarism. Neither has a great record for enlightenment.
Meanwhile non - religious believers such as Gandhi, Lincoln, and Dr. King (as well as their attributed roll model, Christ) tend to inspire universal brotherhood / sisterhood... As we are all part of the same creation.
Jesus spoke directly to the necessity and duty to take in the refugees.
But how many churches follow that teaching?
As another great leader wrote
"We are in no position to call God our Father unless we can call all men [and women] our brothers [and sisters]. "
— Sawan Singh
If you can do this, perhaps you don't need a God. If you realize that you have a place in this creation, and a duty to treat others with the greatest possible kindness, what religion do you need?
But if you fear doing so will put you at a disadvantage, then believing a benevolent God is there encouraging you is a very healthy thing.
Going it alone is fine for those who like that freedom, as long as they do not abuse others in the process.
That means freedom to worship as one wishes... Whether the worship of God or kindness.
For those who prefer good, reliable company along the way, but tend to be loners, there is always the Divine.
As for the Bible, the same God who teaches universal brotherhood there also commands His followers to invade and murder, even to murder infants. People have found their justifications for both in that book.
And in the Communist Manifesto.
It is justification for our own flaws.
Or it is inspiration to rise above them.
Posted by: Spencer Tepper | June 04, 2017 at 04:15 AM