"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies."
Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Actually, She is a Believer
"When I say I am not a believer, it doesn't mean I believe nothing. It is that belief is not central to my religious and spiritual life. As a matter of fact, belief holds little importance to me at all. Belief doesn't structure my experience; my experience structures what few beliefs I might have"
This is how T. Thorn Coyle opens her piece "Why I Am Not a Believer." The very first sentence is a synopsis of an all too common misconception/myth. The idea that if you do not have religious based beliefs you automatically believe in nothing is absurd. Everyone has beliefs. The nature of those beliefs vary greatly. This is not quite what Coyle means by not being a believer but her variation of this misunderstanding is not much better.
Most of what follows the opening paragraph not only fails to support the idea that beliefs are secondary for Coyle, a great deal of her own writing seems to be self-contradictory. She goes out of her way to isolate belief from experience. Though it is true the two are not synonyms and should not be treated as if they are they do still have a great deal of interconnected aspects.
In some ways the piece was incredibly painful to read. Despite its brevity it was crammed full of all sorts of new age spirituality and psycho-babble. Ultimately, it seemed like she was trying to convince herself that she is not a "believer" mainly because she cannot strip the term of a variety of traditional connotations that she is uncomfortable with. If this little exercise helped her in some way then I'm happy for her. If she thought she was sharing some type of insight with others I hope she re-reads her own writing and thinks about it a bit more.
This is how T. Thorn Coyle opens her piece "Why I Am Not a Believer." The very first sentence is a synopsis of an all too common misconception/myth. The idea that if you do not have religious based beliefs you automatically believe in nothing is absurd. Everyone has beliefs. The nature of those beliefs vary greatly. This is not quite what Coyle means by not being a believer but her variation of this misunderstanding is not much better.
Most of what follows the opening paragraph not only fails to support the idea that beliefs are secondary for Coyle, a great deal of her own writing seems to be self-contradictory. She goes out of her way to isolate belief from experience. Though it is true the two are not synonyms and should not be treated as if they are they do still have a great deal of interconnected aspects.
In some ways the piece was incredibly painful to read. Despite its brevity it was crammed full of all sorts of new age spirituality and psycho-babble. Ultimately, it seemed like she was trying to convince herself that she is not a "believer" mainly because she cannot strip the term of a variety of traditional connotations that she is uncomfortable with. If this little exercise helped her in some way then I'm happy for her. If she thought she was sharing some type of insight with others I hope she re-reads her own writing and thinks about it a bit more.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
A Portland-based writer specializing in...
According to a note at the bottom a recent Religious News Service commentary, Tom Krattenmaker specializes in "religion in public life." I'm not familiar with Krattenmaker or his writings but if the short piece entitled "COMMENTARY: A new evangelical engagement with public schools" is any indication of his expertise I am not impressed. Within the first paragraph he clearly indicates that he hasn't a clue what he's writing about.
"Why would evangelical Christians want anything to do with public schools? Judging from decades of culture war rhetoric, these are bastions of secular humanism where God and his fearers are unwelcome. School prayers — not allowed. Teaching creationism — verboten. Abstinence-only sex education — few to be found. Sharing the gospel openly — forget about it"
Utter nonsense! There is no ban on prayer in schools. Every student has the right to pray. What they do not have a right to do is preach. During any break or free time students are allowed to pray as they see fit. There are, of course, reasonable restrictions. Their prayers cannot be disruptive. They cannot interrupt a class or other students activities. It is also not allowed for the school itself, whether in the form of policy or by individual faculty/staff, to impose prayer on students. Basically, students have always had and continue to have the right to pray regardless of where they are. That is strike one.
Unfortunately, more states are pushing through "academic freedom" bills that allow the teaching of creationism in science class. Technically there has never been a ban on creationism in schools in general even before these bills. What was not seen as acceptable was passing it off as science. Schools have and still do teach various aspects of creationism in other classes. Strike two.
Even though the Obama administration has begun to reinstate some funding for comprehensive sex-ed classes the majority of states still favor abstinence only based sex-ed courses over comprehensive curriculum. This has been the case for decades. Abstinence only despite its proven failure is still the standard for sex education throughout the country. Strike three. And we have not even gotten to fact that Christians do openly share their religious views, including the Gospels.
How exactly does this guy specialize in "religion in public life" when he has no idea how infused religion is in this country? By this incredibly low standard I should not only be considered an expert on religion, which I do not consider myself to be, I should be a demi-god of this subject matter. After all if such a blatantly clueless dumb-ass like Krattenmaker can be seen as having any expertise it should be easy to argue that I am near omniscient in the field.
"Why would evangelical Christians want anything to do with public schools? Judging from decades of culture war rhetoric, these are bastions of secular humanism where God and his fearers are unwelcome. School prayers — not allowed. Teaching creationism — verboten. Abstinence-only sex education — few to be found. Sharing the gospel openly — forget about it"
Utter nonsense! There is no ban on prayer in schools. Every student has the right to pray. What they do not have a right to do is preach. During any break or free time students are allowed to pray as they see fit. There are, of course, reasonable restrictions. Their prayers cannot be disruptive. They cannot interrupt a class or other students activities. It is also not allowed for the school itself, whether in the form of policy or by individual faculty/staff, to impose prayer on students. Basically, students have always had and continue to have the right to pray regardless of where they are. That is strike one.
Unfortunately, more states are pushing through "academic freedom" bills that allow the teaching of creationism in science class. Technically there has never been a ban on creationism in schools in general even before these bills. What was not seen as acceptable was passing it off as science. Schools have and still do teach various aspects of creationism in other classes. Strike two.
Even though the Obama administration has begun to reinstate some funding for comprehensive sex-ed classes the majority of states still favor abstinence only based sex-ed courses over comprehensive curriculum. This has been the case for decades. Abstinence only despite its proven failure is still the standard for sex education throughout the country. Strike three. And we have not even gotten to fact that Christians do openly share their religious views, including the Gospels.
How exactly does this guy specialize in "religion in public life" when he has no idea how infused religion is in this country? By this incredibly low standard I should not only be considered an expert on religion, which I do not consider myself to be, I should be a demi-god of this subject matter. After all if such a blatantly clueless dumb-ass like Krattenmaker can be seen as having any expertise it should be easy to argue that I am near omniscient in the field.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Quotation
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
Isaac Asimov
Isaac Asimov
The Devil Made Me
And here we have more fun with absurdist theist theatre, "Catholic Priest: Disbelief in the Devil main cause of atheism." That's right fellow non-theists, our beliefs, or lack there of, are the direct result of a theistic imaginary frenemy. The devil didn't just make me do something the red-hued horned one actually made me what I am. Good to know.
Since father's day is coming up, should I consider getting a card for Satan? Like usual, while reading this ridiculous piece a couple things popped into my. For a good hour, or so, I could not get out of my head either the Grateful dead song Friend of the Devil or one of the SNLChurch Lady's catch phrases, "Could it be SATAN?!"
Oh, and remember kids, If you believe in the Boogey Man you're not really a monotheist.
Since father's day is coming up, should I consider getting a card for Satan? Like usual, while reading this ridiculous piece a couple things popped into my. For a good hour, or so, I could not get out of my head either the Grateful dead song Friend of the Devil or one of the SNLChurch Lady's catch phrases, "Could it be SATAN?!"
Oh, and remember kids, If you believe in the Boogey Man you're not really a monotheist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)