Inspired by Staks Rosch’s blog today at http://www.dangeroustalk.net/?p=168, I wanted to add some of my thoughts to the issue.
I’ve never met a ‘REAL’ ex-atheist. No doubt your first thought (if you’re theist) is that I’m in denial. But no, I am pretty certain that I’m not, and I’ll tell you why with a few more memorable examples.
One- the man who chose to be an atheist for two weeks, to see what it was like. I can’t imagine that needs explanation, but … you cannot CHOOSE whether or not you believe in a god. You can choose to either investigate theology, or blindly accept it, but you will then be subject to whatever you personally conclude. This fellow actually walked into a gathering of atheists and proceeded to argue with us that he’d been an atheist. Now, he’s a very smart man in general; a teacher, highly literate, but he was so off base on this one it was actually uncomfortable. He actually BELIEVED that he stopped believing for two weeks, and therefore he understood atheism in its entirety and was going to show us the errors of our ways.
Many more simply don’t understand what ‘ATHEIST’ means. They think if they didn’t attend church for a while or think about religion, they were atheist. Or, if they went through a bad spell, (did ‘bad things’ like stealing, etc) they were atheist during that time. Upon deeper conversation, though, it always comes to the point that they never DID NOT BELIEVE a god exists, they just weren’t actively worshipping it.
Another… a man who was a real atheist all his life. He then had a series of massive strokes and heart attacks, was reduced to someone who grabbed any woman nearby’s breasts or genitals, repeated himself into absurdity, and was otherwise severely mentally incapacitated. He didn’t claim to be an ex-atheist, nor to believe, he simply liked to sit in his wheelchair and watch endless western movies and preachers on tv, so his family (not atheists!) insisted he’d returned to the fold - even though they understood that he was incompetent on all other counts, on THAT one, they were CERTAIN he’d been saved. Sigh. (In this case, those claiming ‘ex’ atheist were family, not the person himself.)
Oh, one more - a university PhD professor who claimed he was a ‘Christian Atheist’. On the surface, it appeared he didn’t believe in gods but chose to embrace the more positive tenets of Christianity, thus, he coined his christian-atheist persona. I got to know him pretty well. It turned out to be bullshit - a way to lay the most students. (Oh ethics!) He didn’t WANT to believe, because the intellectual side of him told him it was nonsense, but he couldn’t stop believing. He was embarassed by his belief, so he claimed he was part-atheist. What the hell can anyone even SAY about that other than how sad a creature he is.
Several others were ‘atheist’ in their rebellious youth - didn’t think a bit about the questions of whether or not gods exist, but only the ‘cool’ aspect of being an outsider. When they grew up, they went right back to the faiths of their fathers, unquestioningly.
Now, am I saying it is impossible for a ‘fully realized atheist’ (thanks to my close friend Rick Wingrove- http://www.flamewarrior.com - for that term - FRA), to have an epiphany and return to belief in a god? Nothing is impossible when one abandons reason for ‘faith’. I find it hard to buy, but I won’t say I KNOW it’s not possible. But, in EVERY case I’ve encountered (and 13 yrs as sysop on Compuserve’s Religion forum gives me a lot of latitude here, having discussed this with literally thousands of folks interested in the question of gods - for and against), I can honestly say that I have NEVER met a FRA who abandoned his or her atheism to return to religion.
I’ve met many very sincere questioners, too. Some folks who were quite torn up about it, so unsure were they that it became an anxiety for them. Many who were terrified of atheism - thinking that if they admitted they didn’t believe, they’d suddenly turn into serial killers. They hadn’t figured out that ethics and morality were already here… and if there was no god, then clearly you didn’t need one to tell you how to behave. People don’t like atheism. It scares them, because it challenges what they think is their core reason for being. So, they assign all sorts of negative traits to atheists. I’ll write about some of those behaviors in another blog, along with comments on where morality and ethics come from… and again and again, what atheism IS.
A response to my posted link from the Human Rights Campaign just below this note on my FACEBOOK profile page.
Hi Walt,
You said: >>So… those with a morality glitch in their mental systems, the ones that don’t accept homosexual marriages… have to live with a teacher explaining it’s ok for gay’s to marry… but cannot read bible stories at parent reading day? >>
I think it’s a wonderful example of the misinformation that the organization referenced above wants you to buy into. First, re marriage - it’s a simple civil right. Why should you and I have the benefits of marriage, but those who were born differently be penalized? No one is saying that ‘your (anyone’s) CHURCH has to perform marriages for anyone, gays included, but they are saying that the GOVERNMENT, which performs civil ceremonies, cannot discriminate against anyone - discrimination which includes many legal rights only granted to those who are married - simply because they are not heterosexual.
HOW does a gay marriage harm YOU?
It IS about the separation of church and state - the state has no morality decision to make- it is guided only by the directive that ALL MEN (now we include women and people of color) are created equally and thus have equal rights. Pretty simple, you’d think.. Religions, on the other hand, are based upon exclusion - you can’t belong unless you believe and do certain things - policies which are inherently counter to the basis of equality this country was founded upon. That’s one of the reasons that it’s so important to keep the churches - all of them! - out of government actions and decisions, while protecting their rights to exist, to preach what they believe, and for their followers to attend/practice them without fear.
So you say, well then how is denying me prayer in schools allowing me to practice without fear or harassment?
There is NOTHING inherent in ‘practicing your faith freely’ which gives you (when I say you, I mean anyone), the right to FORCE their particular faith on others. THAT is where I and many others, including the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State which is RUN by a clergyman, (www.au.org) insist that government draw the line.
You cannot possibly be fair to all at the same time that you give special permissions to some - especially when those permissions infringe upon the rights of the others!!
To your question that the WORDS ’separation of church and state’ are not in the constitution. You said:
< << And, I'd like to have any psuedo intellect show me where in the constitution it states "The separation of church and state" and you will NOT be succesful becaue there is no such amendment in the constitution of the United States. Using the church and state phrase to persecute religion is way too old... those libs have got to get with "today's society" or give back years and years of tax dollars.
Think about it. The phrase was written in a letter to the King of England. They are both cultural issues. Gays in Marriage and religion in schools. >>>
First, the specific words are NOT in the constitution, but the FIRST AMENDMENT is still VERY CLEAR on that issue.
Below is an excellent explanation from http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm. Saves me from having to write it out myself.
————————————–
STATEMENT: The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution.
Response:
That is true, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.
There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like “right to privacy” or even “right to a fair trial.” Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?
Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise. What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
There is nothing there about a “fair trial,” but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.
Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a “religious liberty” exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government “establishes” a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.
Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.
——————————————————-
Ok, also. WHAT do you mean that ‘libs’ have to give back tax dollars because they persecute religion? I really have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s religions which don’t pay taxes, not those who are trying to stop them from inserting themselves into others’ lives. THEY pay taxes.
And then you said: >>If I’m not mistaken… there is religion in schools. Islam. Yes, they can wear the garb but oh no… no crosses, no prayers, no christianity. I cannot defend that nonsense in a revolution.>>
ANYONE can pray wherever they are, anytime they choose. They simply cannot make others join them, NOR can anyone tell them they can’t pray. I don’t know about your local schools, but here the kids in public schools wear cross jewelry whenever they want without anyone bothering them. Re the muslim headscarf - interestingly Islam does not require it, but it has become so widespread that most Muslims don’t know that. Two good friends of mine, one a Muslim scholar, pointed that out to me. However, I don’t have a problem with it, and don’t really know why you do? I don’t have a problem with cross jewelry or tattoos, or anything which remains personal. I don’t care if the boys pants are halfway down their ass, or the girls makeup makes them look dead. I do think overtly sexual dress is inappropriate in school for what I hope are obvious and entirely non-religious reasons.
I repeat this that you said: < <>>
First. It’s the job of the schools to teach tolerance, acceptance. To teach the kids what they’ll encounter in the world. There are KIDS who have gay parents. WHY should they be made to be ashamed or feel otherwise unworthy? That’s cruel and unnecessary.
Reading bible in school - It just so happens that I know the particular issue you’re referring to. The woman who brought that suit was a GalleriaOne artist for a while, Donna Busch. Donna lost the suit, btw, and because I know her, I had read (and just now reread) the complaint, the district response and the court decision. The documents are on the school’s website should you be interested. http://www.mnsd.net/lawsuit/index.html
It wasn’t ‘parent reading day’, by the way. For “all about me” week, Donna’s son Wesley had made (with her) a poster of his life, which included both a photo of his church and a statement that he loved to go to the house of the lord. That wasn’t denied. Nor were all the other things he brought in - some of which reflected his faith. The ONLY thing that was denied was DONNA’s choice to read from the bible, and she readily admits that SHE chose it and why she picked that psalm, because it is her and her family’s intent to ’spread the word of the lord’. It wasn’t about Wesley, it was about Donna trying to find a way to preach to a kindergarten class. Donna’s complaint says that it is Wesley’s ‘favorite book’ but Wesley Busch stated his favorite book was “Fuzzy Brown Bear” (or something like that - not certain that is the EXACT title.) For the record, Donna chose to ignore the teacher’s request to clear with her whatever choices were made at least a week in advance, and instead did NOT follow procedure, but simply showed up with the bible. When I first heard about it, I actually supported her, until I heard the entire story.
But let’s assume, anyhow, for the sake of this discussion, that a child had been ASKED to read from his favorite book, and it was … the Koran. Would you approve? Or do you only approve of biblical readings in public school? Should daily prayer include something from all religions or is only Christianity worthy of this? What about atheist beliefs of humanism? How much time should be devoted to this? WHY?
EACH major holiday, including Christmas, had been discussed as part of class. What I find so interesting is that this would never have been an issue had Christians not been trying to insert THEIR religion into schools in the first place, making the schools paranoid. Wesley could have had the bible reading, and another child the Koran, and another a Jewish text, another a Hindu text, and another a reading from the Humanist Manifesto IF the issue were not so strained already. The only reason it is so is precisely because Christians (in this country!) want THEIR religion to be a part of the curricula for ALL students, no matter what their faith may be.
So you’ll find me against that. I’m against ANY GROUP forcing their beliefs on others. I’m for everyone to have as many rights as I do. To me, that means no prayer in schools, no god stuff on our money, no bias prohibiting marriage for those who are not the ’same’ as I am, no prejudice against those who are mentally challenged, or in any other way ‘different’. The benefits of EQUALITY FOR ALL vastly outweigh personal opinion. And to achieve equality for all, EACH of us must agree not to force our personal ideas on others.
I hope that helped you understand where I and so many others are coming from. Please let me know your thoughts!
My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you’ve bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.
I thank President Bush for his service to our nation — (applause) — as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents.
So it has been; so it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many — and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met. (Applause.)
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation. But in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. (Applause.)
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those that prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor — who have carried us up the long rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops, and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip, and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and died in places like Concord and Gettysburg, Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions, greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week, or last month, or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. (Applause.)
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We’ll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched. But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity, on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good. (Applause.)
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers — (applause) — our Founding Fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man — a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake. (Applause.)
And so, to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity. And we are ready to lead once more. (Applause.)
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we’ll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken — you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. (Applause.)
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. (Applause.)
To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. (Applause.)
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the role that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who at this very hour patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.
We honor them not only because they are the guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service — a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.
And yet at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all. For as much as government can do, and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.
What is demanded, then, is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny. This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall; and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served in a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath. (Applause.)
So let us mark this day with remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At the moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words to be read to the people:
“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive… that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”
America: In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
from http://www.whitehouse.gov where you can also watch the video of the address.
With today’s inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, I feel a joy and pride of country that had been degraded, nearly destroyed by the eight years in office of George W Bush.
What scares me is the ‘has to be irrational’ degree of trust and hope I and so many have placed squarely on Barack. See, I call him Barack, as if I know him. I don’t like liking someone this much - the poor fellow can’t possibly get much higher, so there’s only one way to go… okay two - horizontally, or more likely, down. The crises in the world today, not just in the US, are so overwhelming that no one man or woman, no matter how smart, calm, attentive, rational and otherwise perfect, can even hope to begin to address across the board, much less lay his hands upon and heal.
And it is healing we want, really. Sure, we want all the other stuff - fixing the economy, wars, health care, jobs, racism, hatred, etc, all those things, but those of us who have been emotionally devastated by the horrors of the dual presidency of Bush/Cheyney want more. We need more. We need to believe that not all politicians are as self-serving and callous as the dreadful duo who are, mercifully, no longer able to trash the world as they blithely stumble over everyone and everything. We need this man to be more than anyone can ever ask anyone else to be. More than anyone else CAN be.
That’s something that scares me. But for today, I WILL let the feelings of hope, of admiration, and of love for this man, for Barack Obama and what he stands for to me, wash over me and heal me. Tomorrow, I’ll rein myself back in, put some of those disappointment deflectors back up again, but for today…
“Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute have made important steps toward understanding how life originated by shedding light on the ‘RNA World’ hypothesis. The ‘RNA World’ refers to the idea that life on Earth went through a stage where RNA was used to store information and act as a catalyst, much like DNA and proteins are used in organisms today. A critical component of this stage would be that RNA molecules would have to replicate themselves. The team at Scripps has now synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of additional molecules. These RNA-based, self-replicating systems could be a model for how life on Earth first began to operate.” — Quote from Nasa’s coverage page.
Read the entire article here: http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2999&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
The implications of this research are staggering. Not only for the depth of the knowledge we’ll get, but for the application of the science in ways to benefit us all … it’s truly a wonderful thing!
PhotoMD is my ‘day job’… my own business which I run from my home. As part of my job restoring old and precious photos and documents, I am told many stories… the tales behind the images. This is one of them. The names are changed but reflect ethnicity, some small identifying details have been modified. Otherwise, this is all true, just as I was told it.
My new customer had a high pitched voice on the phone when he called. Sounded like he was a stressed fellow, but that’s not so uncommon these days. He told me he had an old photo he wanted restored, so we setup an appointment for Dan Shapiro later that week.
When he came by I saw a medium height, medium weight man with thick dark-rimmed glasses and a full head of somewhat wayward gray hair. Dan’s wife Agnes came along with him. She was tall and thin, dressed very nicely, and had a look of concern about her. I’d soon find out why. They were both in their late sixties, I’d guess. They sat down in my living room and showed me a photo of a young girl, about 12 yrs old, which was quite faded and stuck to the broken glass inside the frame. I told him that I could recover it for him and commented that she looked like a sweet and pretty girl, and he asked me if I’d like to hear her story.
When Dan was in his early twenties, he was in the service, stationed in San Antonio. One day a friend told him about a little girl of six who desperately needed a home - and needed it fast. Her mother was a good woman, practically a child herself, but her father was abusive, a drunk and a man who flew into rages and hurt his wife and child. He’d recently beaten up the mother and she was hospitalized. They wanted to get this child away from that environment as soon as possible. Dan’s job in the army afforded him private quarters - an apartment with two bedrooms which he shared with no one. He offered to house the child for a while, until a suitable family could be found.
Maria was placed with Dan, but no ’suitable family’ was ever found for her, and Dan never pushed the issue. Over the six years she stayed with him, Maria won his heart. She was happy and kind, and wise beyond her years. There was a sadness in her that made him just want to hold her on his lap and love her. He realized that he wanted to adopt her himself. He had been able to contact her mother, Ana Teresa Munoz, and they became friends. Dan allowed Ana to visit Maria anytime she wanted. Ana Teresa’s older husband had abandoned them, but still showed up on unpredictable occasions to terrorize her and Maria. She worked but couldn’t afford to move away. Over time, Ana Teresa grew to respect Dan as much as Maria did. She knew that Dan was a rare, kind and overwhelmingly generous man - and that his caring and love for Maria was a wonderful solution for all three of them.
As the months turned to years, Dan decided he’d leave the military, move back East to his family hometown, buy a house and start a life with Maria, then 12, who by now really was his daughter in every sense but legally. Dan had started the legal process for adoption and it was well underway, with the full blessing and gratitude of Ana Teresa.
It’s a testament to the goodness of this man that he didn’t want to separate Maria from her biological mother, so he offered to move her to New York as well, putting her up in her own apartment which would be nearby. She joyfully accepted his kindness.
Dan and Maria would fly back east first, get settled, and then he’d send for Ana. After making the flight arrangements for the two of them, planned for right after the adoption proceedings were to be finished, they ran into a kink — the adoption was delayed purely by a court scheduling problem. Dan had job interviews and house-searching appointments prearranged back in NY, so Ana Teresa and Dan hatched a plan. Since he couldn’t take Maria out of the state until the adoption was finalized, Dan would leave Maria with Ana for three short weeks while he flew back to NY and made the arrangements for moving them there. They would stay in his apartment where they’d be safe.
Dan came home and told his family what he was doing. A Jewish man adopting a Catholic girl (and her mother). They were at first against it, but when they saw how much he loved Maria, how much a part of his life she was, they acquiesced, and got together to help him find a suitable place, in a good school district. Dan called Maria and Ana Teresa every day and told them of his progress. They were all excited to begin this new life, somewhere safe, away from so many sad memories. Away from the father and husband who was such a cruel man.
One day near the end of his visit home, Dan got no answer at his home, nor at Ana’s. None the next day, or the next - thankfully, it was time to return and he was glad to get back as soon as he could. He was concerned, but not particularly worried. He knew Ana liked to visit her parents in El Paso, and figured she and Maria had gone there to say goodbye.
He went first to his base apartment. No one there, and no messages. Still no answer at Ana Teresa’s either. Dan was beginning to worry - what if something was wrong? He noticed that people at the base were avoiding talking to him - acting strangely towards him. Now he really became alarmed. Dan went to visit a priest, Father Joe, who’d been working with them on the adoption, the move, etc, and was Ana’s confessor. He asked him where they were.
Father Joe took Dan into his living room, and they sat down together.
When Dan went back to NY, things were fine with Ana and Maria. They were packing, laughing, smiling all the time, so very happy. During that third week, Ana and Maria went over to Ana’s to get some things they wanted to pack for NY. However, Maria’s father, Mateo, barged in. Somehow he’d gotten wind of the adoption plans, and the upcoming move. He’d been watching Ana’s place so he could catch her. He and Ana argued angrily, Maria tried to explain to him that this was what she wanted. But he would have none of it. Ana and he were still married, and he was Maria’s father, and Mateo made it clear they would never move away.
But Dan and Ana Teresa had done their homework. Ana and Mateo were legally separated, and by court order, he was prohibited from visitation or other contact with either Ana or Maria. Ana told Mateo that finally, he could not further ruin their lives. They were leaving, and that was that. He’d have to accept it because this was a result of his own behavior and sickness towards them.
Mateo stormed out and got raging drunk. Ana thought he’d just stay away, that he’d accepted what she told him as something he could not change … so she decided to spend the night in her house. Mateo returned later that night, roused the sleeping mother and daughter, and tied them with rope, put them in his car, and headed west toward the hill country.
After about an hour, along a deserted stretch of road, Mateo pulled over and stopped the car. He opened the trunk and got out a large can of gasoline. He opened up the doors, and doused Maria and Ana, the seats, and then himself.
The woman and child were crying, screaming “NO!” “What are you DOING!” “PLEASE no, Mateo!” “Daddy, no!” but Mateo coldly, silently slid back into his seat, and turned north onto an old access road that ran along the east side of a steep scrub canyon. Soon he turned left, hard and fast, floored it… and drove the car and its trapped, terrified passengers over the edge of a cliff. The car seemed to hesitate, to float, then it slammed into the rocky ground, exploded into fire, rolled over and came to a stop. All you could hear were the flames. No screaming. No crying. No voices. Some hours later the still smoldering wreck was discovered, the bodies burned almost beyond recognition.
Father Joe had saved the newspaper accounts that described the awful scene. There was no mention of Dan as a survivor/relative, no explanation for why this happened, just a matter of fact story about a crazed man who drove his family off a cliff in a tragic murder-suicide of shocking cruelty.
Dan told the priest he wanted to see where it happened. He HAD to see it. Father Joe tried hard to dissuade him. “Dan, this is NOT something you need to see. Please listen to me!” but Dan was frantic, distraught and inconsolable. Finally, Father Joe agreed to take him to the site. They climbed into the Father’s car, and rode west in silence… Dan shaking his head from time to time, still trying to grasp it all; eventually, Father Joe told Dan that they were near the site, and once again, unsuccessfully again, tried to convince him NOT to look at it.
Dan walked over to the edge of the cliff, and looked down. He could see the scorched earth where the car landed. In his mind, he could see the beautiful faces of Maria and Ana Teresa contorted with fear, terrified, screaming for their lives. It was a beautiful, cloudless Texas spring day, a day that makes you happy to be alive, but Dan’s grief took so engulfed him that he never noticed it.
Dan fell down on his knees, sobbing. He gasped for breath. This was so surreal, so unbelieveable, so horrible, so inconcievable. He just couldn’t take it in. It felt like his heart had been ripped out of his body. The pain, the hurt, imagining the horror and dread Maria and Ana suffered - it was all too much. He slumped over and was quiet. Father Joe gently guided Dan back to his car, and drove him back to the base hospital, where they admitted Dan. Dan wasn’t crying, or talking, or reacting to anyone or anything. He just sat there, sometimes rocking back and forth, sometimes doubling over, but never speaking to anyone, with a frightening, empty stare in his eyes. After 3 months in the hospital in Texas, Dan was transferred to a mental health hospital back in New York, near his family. He remained there for another six months.
Then, suddenly… Dan forgot. He had no memory at all of Maria, of Ana Teresa, of the six years they were such a huge part of his life, no memory of the horrible murder they suffered. It was gone, and Dan appeared to be ok.
Released from the hospital, he eventually found a good job - he was trained as an engineer - married, and raised three children of his own. He seemed to be a healthy, normal man. A few years after his first marriage ended in divorce, Dan married Agnes, the woman who came with him to give me the photo to restore.
In the boxes which had been sent from his apartment in San Antonio was the photo of Maria, in a small frame. It was a 4×6 shot, taken only months before she died. Her school portrait. She was a lovely young woman - Hispanic warm-toned skin, with big, smiling green eyes and shoulder length dark blonde hair, parted on the side, and combed straight down and under. She was still a child — one who’d known suffering, but who was now so very happy. Her smile just lit up the photo.
The photo had been up on a bookshelf at his parents house all these forty years since he’d come back. He had seen it, but didn’t recognize it as anyone he knew. Dan retired from his job, and went over to visit his parents - something he did regularly. But this time, the photo caught his eye… something about it… he had asked them who it was years before. They said “Someone you knew back in Texas.” and he let it go at that… but this time something nagged at him.
He asked if he could have the photo and they gave it to him. Dan took it home, and looked at it… trying to remember who this could have been. How strange, he thought, that he’d have brought a framed photo of her with him when he returned yet had no idea who she was.
Dan started having dreams, nightmares really, in which he saw Maria… and darkness, and fire, he couldn’t help her, and a jumble of confusing images over and over … until one day, he remembered.
He remembered it all. Maria at six when he first met her, Ana Teresa and their growing friendship, Maria living with him… dancing, laughing, playing. He loved to spoil her, she was always so sweet and grateful. And smart- she was doing fantastically in school. Then, he remembered going home to NY, to make arrangements for her to come with him… and he remembered her violent death. He remembered his anguish, the hospital, everything came rushing back - like a high-speed train heading right for him.
And so Dan fell down again, sobbing, again. He was inconsolable. His family was stunned, here was a whole chapter in their husband and father’s life that no one knew anything about. And what a chapter - full of wonder and love and then, tragedy. Dan became so distraught that he once again needed to go into a mental health facility, where he spent another six months. This time, though, he didn’t forget. This time, the pain never left him. He learned to bear it, with the love and support of his wife and children, his siblings, his family. It was a struggle every day. This time Dan was able to remember and unable to forget.
When Dan told me this story, I sat there in silence, speechless. His voice broke several times - it was clear he still felt very raw emotionally about it. The room was electric, the moment was one that takes your breath away. This time, he was telling the story to select people - as recommended by his therapist. Let it out… His wife also sat there in silence. We looked at each other several times, recognizing the intensity of the pain Dan was trying to hold in. She told me later that until Dan remembered Maria, he’d been one of the most stable, sane people she’d ever met. Then, out of the blue, this happened. She did whatever she could to help him, but this memory had changed their lives. He was a different man, once emotionally strong, he was now so fragile, so consumed with renewed grief that it overtook most aspects of their lives.
It was she who suggested to him that they get the photo restored, and that’s how they found me. It’s how I came to hear this deeply personal, very emotional story. Dan was my customer five years ago, and I still think of his story. I can’t imagine living it.
When Dan picked up the finished image, he cried again, but this day, it was more of a sentimental cry rather than a cry of anguish.
I’ve been strongly against the war in Iraq - but this is about Afghanistan… it is based on an article from 2001, which I think remains relevant.
My morning email contained a copy of an article written by Scott Simon, when the US first went into Afghanistan. He’s a Quaker pacifist as well as a war reporter, but even he saw the need to take up arms against evil intent, comparing the pacifist viewpoint of total non-agression to the initial lack of response to Hitler’s abominable agressions in WWII. [I'll paste the article at the end of my commentary.]
I am not a pacifist by religion - as my readers know, I am atheist - but I am one by observation. I agree with Scott Simon when he talks about his pacifism — “Pacifism seemed to offer a chance for survival to a generation that had been stunted by the fear of nuclear extinction.” Yet he goes on “In Sarajevo, Srebrenica, and Kosovo, I confronted the logical flaw (or perhaps I should say the fatal flaw) of nonviolent resistance: All the best people can be killed by all the worst ones.”
I, too, am very conflicted between my desire for no fighting and the situation in Afghanistan - I believe we DO need to stop terrorists - I would prefer we manage it by reasoning, but sadly, that won’t always work. Our country, at the very least, and the world communities at best, are in many ways ‘our children’. Were we out walking with a child and someone tried to grab or hurt them, we’d respond immediately with whatever force was needed to protect them. It is a RESPONSE which would be warranted. It’s the initial agression which so compromises - and perhaps confuses - the pacifist.
There’s a tremendous and very seductive beauty to the belief that we must all accept one another; it’s very Buddhist as well as Quaker, philosophies I much admire. But Simon is right - there does come a time when the most elegant efforts of pacifism do not accomplish elegant goals - but rather fall dreadfully short of true assistance to others. It’s in those cases that we must put aside our ideals, and pick up the fight - sick as it makes us feel, awful as it is, the alternative is worse - and that should be our criterium in making the decision to respond with war. I most sincerely hope that the day will come when humans all respect one another and live in peace and harmony with ALL life on earth, but sadly, until that day, sometimes we have to work to achieve it in ways which are not ideal.
We SHOULD be in Nigeria, in Darfur, in Burma and Tibet, in the ghettos and ‘bad sections of towns’ here in the US, anywhere the least able of us needs us to help them survive and live in peace. Often the solution will NOT produce any conflict with pacifist behaviors- we CAN accomplish much without fighting. The better we are at keeping peace, the better we can approach truly LIVING the ideals of pacifism. But this is not a decision to make lightly. We have no excuse for what we’ve done in Iraq, but we do belong in Afghanistan.
Until we ALL involve ourselves in helping our earth family, we have no real right to demand anyone else follow our philosophy. And no matter who we are, or what we do, there is always something each of us CAN do.
So, let’s DO it — for the love of humankind. Join protests, write letters, make your voice known. EVERYONE can do SOMETHING, however small or big. Volunteer if you can to help - donate money if you can to help… and please don’t consider ‘praying’ for things to improve THE answer, a ‘good enough’ contribution. If prayer helps you, fine. Please consider doing something else, too.
Even Pacifists Must Support This War (Afghanistan 2001) Those who refuse are reminiscent of the Oxford Union in 1933.
BY SCOTT SIMON Thursday, October 11, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
Pacifists often commit the same mistake as generals: They prepare for the last war, not the next one. Many of the peace activists I have seen trying to rouse opposition to today’s war against terrorism remind me of a Halloween parade. They put on old, familiar-looking protest masks–against American imperialism, oppression and violence–that bear no resemblance to the real demons haunting us now.
Pacifism has never been exactly popular. But when I became a Quaker as an adolescent in the late 1960s, pacifism seemed to offer a compelling alternative to the perpetuity of brute force. Mahatma Gandhi had overthrown an empire and Martin Luther King had overturned a racial tyranny with nonviolent marches, fasts, and boycotts that were nervy, ennobling and effective. Pacifism seemed to offer a chance for survival to a generation that had been stunted by the fear of nuclear extinction.
I worked as a war reporter, but I never saw a conflict between this and being a Quaker. If my reporting was sometimes drawn more to human details than to the box-score kind of war coverage, those details struck me as critical to explaining war. I never covered a conflict–whether in Central America, the Caribbean, Africa or the Middle East–that seriously shook my religious convictions. In fact, most conflicts seemed to prove how war was rotten, wasteful and useless. El Salvador’s civil war killed 70,000 people over nine years. It was hard to see how the political compromise that ended the conflict could not have been reached after just six months.
But in the 1990s, I covered the Balkans. In Sarajevo, Srebrenica, and Kosovo, I confronted the logical flaw (or perhaps I should say the fatal flaw) of nonviolent resistance: All the best people can be killed by all the worst ones. I had never believed that pacifism had all the answers; neither does militarism. About half of all draft age Quakers enlisted in World War II, believing that whatever wisdom pacifism had to give the world, it could not defeat the murderous schemes of Adolf Hitler and his cohorts.
It seems to me that in confronting the forces that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, American pacifists have no sane alternative now but to support war. I don’t consider this reprisal or revenge, but self-defense: protecting the world from further attacks by destroying those who would launch them.
Some peace activists, their judgment still hobbled by shock, seem to believe that the attacks against New York and Washington were natural disasters: terrible, unpredictable whirlwinds that struck once and will not reoccur.
This is wrong. We know now that there has been an ongoing violent campaign aimed at bringing down diverse nations, with none being more gloriously speckled than the U.S. People who try to hold certain American policies or culture responsible are trying to decorate the crimes of psychotics with synthetic political significance.
n 1933 the Oxford Student Union conducted a famous debate over whether it was moral for Britons to fight for king and country. The exquisite intellects of that leading university reviewed the many ways in which British colonialism exploited and oppressed the world. They cited the ways in which vengeful demands made of Germany in the wake of World War I had helped to kindle nationalism and fascism. They saw no moral difference between Western colonialism and world fascism. The Oxford Union ended that debate with this famous proclamation: “Resolved, that we will in no circumstances fight for king and country.”
Von Ribbentrop sent back the good news to Germany’s new chancellor, Hitler: The West will not fight for its own survival. Its finest minds will justify a silent surrender.
In short, the best-educated young people of their time could not tell the difference between the deficiencies of their own nation, in which liberty and democracy were cornerstones, and a dictatorship founded on racism, tyranny and fear.
And what price would those who urge reconciliation today pay for peace? Should Americans impose a unitary religious state, throw women out of school and work, and rob other religious groups of their rights, so that we have the kind of society the attackers accept? Do pacifists really want to live in the kind of world that the terrorists who hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon would make?
Pacifists do not need any lectures about risking their lives to stop wickedness. Quakers resisted slavery by smuggling out slaves when even Abraham Lincoln tried to appease the Confederacy. Pacifists sneaked refugee Jews out of Germany when England and the U.S. were still trying to placate Hitler. Many conscientious objectors have served bravely in gritty and unglamorous tasks that aided the U.S. in time of war.
But those of us who have been pacifists must admit that it has been our blessing to live in a nation in which other citizens have been willing to risk their lives to defend our dissent. The war against terrorism does not shove American power into places where it has no place. It calls on America’s military strength in a global crisis in which peaceful solutions are not apparent.
Only American (and British) power can stop more killing in the world’s skyscrapers, pizza parlors, embassies, bus stations, ships, and airplanes. Pacifists, like most Americans, would like to change their country in a thousand ways. And the blasts of Sept. 11 should remind American pacifists that they live in that one place on the planet where change–in fact, peaceful change–seems most possible. It is better to sacrifice our ideals than to expect others to die for them.
Mr. Simon is host of National Public Radio’s “Weekend Edition With Scott Simon.”
Over the last few days, a fellow I didn’t know sent me a series of messages on Facebook, asking me if I’d explain further a statement I made on another person’s page in response to that person’s posting. I said Sure… It became apparent in just a couple exchanges that this wasn’t a sincere inquiry into what *I meant, but a backdoor effort to bring me to Jesus. There are two most telling items here; his comment in red, and the fact that he NEVER went to read what I suggested. Here is the exchange - with his and his friend’s names removed- initials only. Atheists will find this exchange classic. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had this same conversation, almost word for word, yet each Christian thinks they’ve come up with a new approach. I’ve given him the last word in each case, because he wouldn’t stop until I did.
Here y’are. BEGIN MSGS. (Note as there were three different threads, noted below. G’s comments are in bold, my replies in plain text.)
G- Hi Carol, I am a friend of S’s. I was just curious. Are you a Christian or an athiest or neither?
Carol: Hi G… I am an atheist with strong Buddhist philosophical leanings, and a naturalist - which is very much like a buddhist, in that I think everything is interrelated, and nothing is ‘better’ than anything else. What are you? Why do you ask?
G- I am a Christian. I just asked because I saw your post on his wall. Have you always been an athiest or were you once something else? If so, what caused the change?
Carol - I became atheist - actually agnostic in the usual definition - had a lot of doubts but hadn’t made a decision about the existence of gods- in my teens. Some years later, after a lot of thought, I realized I am atheist. What caused the change? Well, (and I mean no offense to you– you’re asking me!) the tenets of beliefs were irrational to me. The reasons for gods existenses were unjustifiable, in my mind. Just as to you what I believe is inconceivable, belief in gods is, to me, bizarre and irrational.
G- I see. So, why is belief in God irrational to you? Is that your main criteria for determining whether a thing be credible or no?
Carol- It might be easier for you to read my blogs, and other commentary to get an idea of where I’m coming from. The blog is on www.caraleisa.com, and there are other articles I’ve written on www.philosoraptor.com.
To answer the ‘irrational’ bit… it’s ONE criteria which applies to SOME things, and not others. There’s nothing which applies to everything!
G- So basically you belief all Truth to be had is relative, and that there are no universal truths?
Carol - That’s a pretty all-encompassing statement, but if you mean do I think there are absolute truths, then no, I do not. I’m curious why you are asking… are you truly interested in understanding where atheists are coming from, or are you out to save me?
G- Well, actually BOTH! I genuinely care about people and their beliefs and there futures. That is part of being a Christian. I’ll understand if you want to discontinue dialoguing…
Carol - I don’t mind discussing my beliefs with you, as long as you put your agenda aside and truly want ONLY to learn. If you can do that, we can talk. If you want to save me, then no, I am truly not interested. I wonder if you understand how offensive that is - try thinking of it in reverse - if I wanted to talk to you because I said I genuinely care about people but really want I wanted was to get you to recognize and accept the absurdity and falsehood of your beliefs. See what I mean?
So… it’s up to you. I’ll be happy to explain my beliefs to you if you are still interested. I don’t want to hear about Christianity, though! If that’s not what you want, that’s ok, too…
G - Like I said, actually BOTH I DO want to hear you beliefs, but would like it to be fair (i.e. I am able to express mine also). The Gospel by nature is offensive to us all, because it exposes us for what we really are…and we don’t like that.
Carol - Well, I’m afraid I don’t want to hear your beliefs… so I suppose we’re at a standstill. See, YOU asked me about mine, but I haven’t asked you about yours… and don’t intend to. It was not the gospel I found offensive; it is the attitude that only a Christian is right about the issue of gods, and I need to hear from you to fix myself. You don’t know anything about my experiences, or what I DO know about Christianity. . . which is a great deal. I just don’t buy it, and am pretty tired of Christians trying to ‘educate’ me. Also, I really DO like who I am, and am sorry that your gospels make you feel that you don’t like yourself. I am a good person, I care for and help people, and give them respect for who they are, without trying to change them. I think that I deserve the same respect. So, we’re going nowhere, Greg. I wish you well, though! And like I said, there’s a great deal about my beliefs on the websites I pointed out to you if you really DO want to know how I think. Have a great holiday, and Happy New Year!
G- Carol, based on what you wrote, I am afraid you don’t understand the gospel. It doesn’t make you feel bad about yourself. The Gospel is Good News! That is why Christians don’t want to shut up and want to talk about it all the time!
Carol - G***, I didn’t say that, YOU did. And seriously, if you want to save someone, find someone else, it won’t be me. I’m already quite well saved. You need to understand that pushing your faith on others is not always welcome. I really don’t want to be rude, but I really am not going to play…
G- Carol, Whart are saved from?
Carol Everhart Roper - Your evangelism…
G- You enjoyed saying that one didn’t you?
Carol- Well, you DID ask for it! And actually, no, I didn’t enjoy it. I don’t like to be forced to be heavy handed to get a point across, but you sorta left me no choice.
G- Its fine…you didn’t offend me.
It’s funny because between the two of us, you seem to be the less “tolerant” and yet the general charge is that Christians are the ones who are not tolerant of listening and accepting others…
Second thread:
G - I hope… You aren’t afraid of hearing my perspective
Carol Everhart Roper — Haha, no I am not afraid of it. I am simply totally uninterested in it. Sorry!!
NOTE: HERE is where the true colors show:
G- Fair enough. Your choice. I will not be held accountable for not trying to warn you on the Day of Reckoning.
Carol Quote: << I will not be held accountable for not trying to warn you on the Day of Reckoning.>> Wow… do you not think that’s pretty sanctimonious? G***, I am not and have not attacked your beliefs,but am simply stating that they are NOT mine, and I do not wish to rethink what I believe. Now that you realize you’re not going to get anywhere, please don’t throw that stuff at me. It’s meaningless to me, and just feels rude. Again, Best wishes to you and yours.
G– Carol, I didn’t say it to make you angry. I said it out of heartfelt concern. Please don’t mistake that for rudeness. I have not intentions of being rude to you. honest.
Carol Everhart Roper - Good, I am glad you were unintentionally rude, and didn’t mean to be … well, I think we’ve wrapped this conversation up! Happy Holidays!
G- But the Gospel is offensive, and that is what I have been sharing. Merry Christmas! Jesus is Lord!
Third thread:
G- Why did you tell S on me?
Carol- Hey G., I didn’t know it was secret, first of all.
And second, if you’re going to plumb his friend’s lists to evangelize, he had the right to know. What you don’t seem to understand is that it’s offensive to atheists and those of other religions than yours to be pounced upon. I know that you get tremendous joy and happiness from your faith, and so I am glad for you. But we don’t all eat the same fish… my life, for example, is also fulfilled, joyful, and complete, without any religion. I wish you well, but also wish you would remember that you alone don’t hold the secrets to existence! Talk to you later… we’re going out now.
G- I wasn’t plumbing Steve’s list to evangelize (your assumption). The only person I talked to was you. Howbeit, I wasn’t offended, just curiuous. S has no authority on FaceBook (no more than you or I), so that is really why I was curious.
the >> preceding a line is a quote from my original article, Bold is her comment, and then in Bold Italics is my response.
> First, I tackled his idea that being atheist is a
> choice - (specifically, a choice NOT to take a leap
> of faith). That’s two sided right there. It’s NOT a
> choice about belief - either you do, or like us, you
> do not. We didn’t just up and arbitrarily choose to
> abandon god one day. Atheists, almost all of them in
> my experience, (and I do know a lot of them!) always
> come to their atheism by rational thought. <<
Umm, I’ve known people to turn atheist for other
reasons because they have a simplistic approach to
religious philosophy. And not all atheists are
rational, moral or non arrogant…. I find the good
versus evil Christianity a bit silly, I find the born
agains as ridiculous as I do the Muslims who believe
that everyone is born Muslim and one does not convert,
but reverts to Islam. I find the Hindu idea of
simplistic rebirth daft and I find the complex rituals
in modern day Buddhism strange considering it was born
out of Prince Siddharta’s revolt against Hinduism that
had become very ritualistic and Brahmanical.
I should have been more clear, Uju. Some people get angry with their gods, and then say they’re atheist. I should use Rick Wingrove’s term “Fully REalized Atheist” to distinguish between an angry theist and a sincere atheist.
Below this I do state that atheism doesn’t make one more rational, moral or non-arrogant than theism - that there are all types of people on both sides of belief.
I also find many of the tenets of most religions incomprehensible.
>>If you
> step back from any one religion and begin to compare
> it to all religions with belief in deities, you can
> see pretty easily where these ideas came from. And
> they came from humans trying to explain away
> phenomena they were otherwise incapable of
> explaining. As we progressed with science<<
That’s a bit arrogant….my dear?
Why? I think what I said is a bit simplistic, as there are numerous other reasons religions originated besides the need to explain what we don’t understand (such as power, etc), but I’m not convinced it’s an arrogant statement.
>>and
> philosophy and have the ability to do serious
> comparisons among the myths of all religions, we see
> repeated patterns of the ‘tales’ of the individual
> gods. The Moses in a Basket story, for example, is
> repeated in several religions with the names and
> locations changed. The virgin birth story is
> repeated in multiple faiths. The list goes on and
> on. (A wonderful resource for these comparisons, and
> a truly fascinating read is “The Women’s
> Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets”, by Barbara G
> Walker, is a book I received as a gift years ago,
> and return to frequently.)<<
I’ll look it up but forgive me if I am a bit sceptical
about its premises.
I’m all for skepticism, all the time. Including of anything I might say!! As an aside, Gary D gave me the book - and he’s a thinker I respect as well. I predict that you’ll love the book. It’s a lovely collection of theological beliefs, their origins and parallels around the world, done in a dictionary style. Nothing here is (in my opinion) controversial theory, just the facts, ma’am. <g>
> When you DO investigate, and you DO find real
> evidence for the genesis of supreme beings in the
> minds of our ancestors, it’s pretty hard to continue
> to accept these ideas as valid for many of us. Just
> as we know the earth is not flat, and we know the
> universe is huge and we are barely a speck in it, we
> can know that primitive ideas our species developed
> can be abandoned as knowledge prevails. <<
There seems to be some preconceived notion of what is
primitive in your thinking…. and of what constitutes
“knowledge and knowing”?
Primitive: beliefs held which have been proven wrong by scientific evaluation. Knowledge - the bodies of information we have available to us - Knowing: the ability to USE that knowledge to form our own conclusions (perhaps correct, perhaps not). That’s my take on the three terms.
> I must also briefly address the harm done by
> religions. almost every war in human history has
> been over different gods. The losses, the
> destruction, the pain and death perpetrated in the
> names of gods is staggering. The knowledge
> civilization possessed before being destroyed in the
> dark ages is nothing short of heartbreaking. All in
> the names of gods. From the FEAR of rational thought
> and discourse. But I digress.<<
To blame this on religion is also simplistic and
“primitive” and uninformed. As we all know, politics
and power cause these losses and destruction, not
religion.
But the genesis of politics and power have very often been either overtly or covertly led by religion. Can you tell me of any war in which religion played NO part?
No religion preaches harm to anyone, even
Islam and Christianity that I call the “soul-hunting
religions” do not anywhere state that not being a
believer is a sin or wrong.
UM, I must very seriously disagree with you here. I was raised Roman Catholic, and we certainly were told that those who are not RC, (not just generic believers) were wrong and could NOT ‘go to heaven’. If they were really good but simply uninformed as to the TRUE RELIGION, they would not have to go to hell, but could go to Limbo… a place of peace where you have all the benefits of heaven except being in the presence of and seeing the face of God. I have spoken with numerous folks from other religions who also have shown me the teachings stating non-compliant belief is indeed a sin and wrong. It’s stated in the Bible. I believe (though am not personally familiar with it) that it is also so stated in the Koran. I do not know if Judaism or Hindu beliefs say so - I *think they do not. Same with Buddhists -acceptance and compassion seem to be their base concepts. christianity and islam do indeed condemn the non-believer.
Rational thought is not
and cannot explain some things that separate our
species from the others: emotions, ideals,…. I could
go on. To blame these losses on religion is no
different than saying that atheists are nutters.
I don’t believe I said anywhere that rational thought or scientific methodology holds all answers to everything. We can, however, explain a lot of emotions in rather mundane neurological terms- most interestingly in atypical processes. I guess I’m not exactly sure what your point is here. What losses? (Some atheists ARE nutters — just like theists.)
> My point here is that there is no real choice. It’s
> pretty easy to KNOW there are no gods, either.<<
really? Or is it because you Choose to believe that
there are no gods?
This is *REALLY* an important point. I do not CHOOSE what I believe, just as you don’t, either. We may arrive at our conclusions via very different paths, but it is in NO WAY a “choice” of which to believe, just as sexual orientation is not a choice. Just as left or righthandedness is not a choice. I can CHOOSE to ponder the question or avoid considering it, but I can’t choose my conclusions when I do the thinking. Not if I’m honest with myself… and what is the point of not being honest with oneself?
>>(The
> arguments “Well maybe there are no gods as any
> humans have described could be true but you can’t
> know there are no gods we don’t know about!” or
> “Well Everything is God, so there!” are beyond
> absurd. HUH? WE invented the idea and concept - the
> WORD - god(s). So we cannot make the word then have
> alternative meanings and associations we don’t yet
> know about. The invention does NOT take on a life
> above and beyond that of the inventor. I am simply,
> totally incapable of saying “I know there is no god
> but I am going to choose to believe there is a god.”
> I asked our friend if he could be an atheist for a
> day. He said, “I could but I choose not to do that.”
> Uh huh. So that’s the ‘choice’ part.<<
That’s an interesting take on atheism and theism.
How so?
> The arrogance. Wow. Ok. Every atheist I know has
> approached their own beliefs with as open a mind as
> is possible. Like a serious scientist with
> integrity, you do NOT state your conclusion until
> you do the work. And the answer is a RESULT of the
> work.<<
I am sorry but that is pure and wonderfully funny
arrogance… like someone who says “I don’t judge
people” and yet holds very strong opinions…A serious
scientist? And not a serious theist? Why? Because an
atheist cannot wrap his/her mind around what s/he
refuses to see or experience? Besides, as Pascal will
tell you, science is not infallible either….
You find it arrogant to say that I and others are dedicated to being openminded, simply because our conclusions do not match yours? … Being respectful of others RIGHTS to their own opinions, beliefs, etc, does NOT in any way require one to have no opinions of one’s own! And of course science is not infallible. NOTHING is infallible! Either we’re not communicating here, or I think YOUR statement is arrogant!! <giggle>
>>Sure you begin with a hypothesis, either I
> think that “There is a god”, or “There is not a
> god”. But serious research will NOT permit any
> ‘givens’ other than what is, in fact, there.You
> can NOT state that you KNOW there is a god when the
> WAY you know is that you took a LEAP OF FAITH. <<
All life experiences require a LEAP OF FAITH. Whether
“discovering” fire, “hidden continents”, trusting
another human, everything requires a leap of faith.
And some of us (me for example) have come to view
spirituality through our experiences that science has
not been able to explain. And I have spooked Pascal
many times with these. And who defines what is
“serious research”? That is a qualitative, individual
decision, or a community of scared scientists wanting
desperately to prove a hypothesis.
Hmmm. I think we need to define ‘leap of faith’ here and speak within these parameters. I cannot even imagine how you call discovering fire a leap of faith, for example. But I repeat, — I never stated that science has the answers to EVERYTHING. “Serious scientific research” is very easily defined by the entire scientific community, following specific rules, and is anything BUT an individual decision. In fact, it’s the individual decision about the rules of research which DISqualify it as ’serious’. Where on earth are you coming up with this ’scared scientists’ routine?
The essence of true scientific exploration is to discover the fact, WHATEVER it is. To in every way AVOID guiding any experiments toward any specific answer. And when we talk about scientific discoveries or theories or hypotheses, we are obligated by integrity to state what is an idea, an educated but unproven guess, versus what has been proven. Science, however, will by it’s very nature, turn over anything when new evidence is presented. To seek truth is the ultimate and sole goal of science.
> Well, you can state it, but you shouldn’t seriously
> expect anyone else to buy it, should you? <<
Errrm why not? Scientists expect the world to believe
them! I do believe the earth is round (Hindus actually
did), I did believe that egg yolks were terrible for
me, and now they aren’t as bad; wine was bad for me,
now it isn’t bad; theories about colds etc… we could
go on. Western doctors insisted that Indians stop
massaging babies, well now it’s all the rage. Don’t
stimulate babies, now let’s give them the rubiks cube!
There was life on Mars, well is there? We all
ultimately believe what we want to. Science goes on to
prove and disprove itself, which is what I like about
it. We don’t know enough, but have decided to place
science (hard science, soft science, social science,
there’s a caste system in science as well) on a
pedestal. And what we as a species place on a pedestal
always seems to come to a fall.
I have no argument with this, nor did I say otherwise. In fact, I THOUGHT I essentially said the exact same thing above. You said “Science goes on to prove and disprove itself, which is what I like about it.” and I agree entirely. I also agree that anything we idealize has only one way to go, and that’s down.
>>What if I
> told you that I have the obligation to kill anyone
> who disagrees with me because Jojo the Great told
> me, and I HEARD him say it in my head and heart,
> that I was entrusted with carrying out this mission.
> Exchange ‘Jojo’ with ‘GOD’ and you have exactly the
> situation in the conflict between the Shia and Sunni
> in Iraq. - that one is too primitive for you? Ok,
> the English and the Irish. How’s THAT for
> unbelieveable in today’s world, in the most advanced
> societies on earth we STILL have religious wars.<<,
Nowadays they would call you schizo and call in the
blokes in white coats…. but wait, all the theories
of creativity and intelligence have documented that in
a number of cases (Einstein included) all had inklings
or “dream states” where they “saw” (I hate using the
words because they have been mocked and misused often)
prior to things happening….
A leap of intuition which causes one to then explore and either prove or disprove it is NOT accepting the concept as a leap of faith. Yes indeed, it’s well documented that scientists just like everyone else, have what we call intuited ideas. The absolute difference, however, is that while you or I might intuit something and in our personal lives choose to then ‘believe’ it, no scientist worth his salt can do this. I think we have all had experiences which we can’t explain. I am not sure how that invalidates atheism.
The Shia and Sunni feud,
by calling it primitive, that is offensive to say the
least.
Here I need to clarify what *I meant because indeed it sure does sound offensive. I’ve used this example before and been told it doesn’t hold up because ‘they are primitive’. I very much do NOT consider Arab culture primitive - indeed, as you well know, Indian and Arab peoples have contributed tremendously, throughout history, to science, art, culture, etc. So I outright APOLOGIZE for how that sounded - it truly is not how I meant it.
Let’s look in our own backyard: Native
Americans and the whites in America. How in anyone’s
name can you justify calling today’s world “the most
advanced societies on earth”? To me, we live in a
hypocritical, smug, arrogant, twatty, superficial,
money-minded, selfish (did I say arrogant) society and
time period ever. It’s as if we’ve returned to our
egocentric childhood state. If world leadership is an
indication of being advanced then, we’re in sorry
shape! Obama or not… he seems to have turned into a
media circus with his family turning into a hollywood
drama.
I don’t particluarly disagree with your portrayal of our world today; but in FACT, we DO live in the most advanced societies on earth. ADVANCED does not equate to PERFECT in any way. We do have access to the most advanced medicine, science, food, housing, etc. Can it improve, DAMN STRAIGHT it can and must.
> Oh, yes. well you’re right - Stalin WAS atheist. But
> Hitler was a Catholic. ANY belief structure, theist
> or atheist, will have both good and bad people.
> FAITH does not make you GOOD, and no religious faith
> does not, by default, make you BAD.<<
There we agree. Religion (atheism or Hinduism) all
have their good and bad apples…. and their own
interpretation of religion, faith and principles. BTW
I think of atheism as a religion, it has its own dogma
and as many interpretations as there are atheists.
We agree until you come to atheism is a religion. One can metaphorically call science a religion, but in fact, it’s NOT. The same with atheism. All atheism means is WITHOUT GODS. There is NO dogma about it, and no karma running over it. <grin>. Any philosophy which goes beyond that simple fact is not pure atheism, but atheism as a base for expanding one’s personal (or group) ideas. Humanism, for example, is BASED upon atheism, but goes beyond it in what it claims is ‘best to do’… etc. The Humanist Manifesto, for example, www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html, states it is NOT a creed but rather a point of view. I, for example, while espousing many of the ideas, do not consider myself a Humanist because I disagree with some of their beliefs. Yes, HUMANISM can be a belief structure, better called a PHILOSOPHY - BUT NOT A RELIGION as religion by definition encompasses “A system of practices which act according to beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one’s body. ” (definition from www.Wiktionary.com). And on with other belief structures versus Religions.
>>Ethics and
> morals EVOLVED with the growth of civilization. What
> worked is ethical and “Good”, what does not work is
> “Wrong”. I know many people of assorted faiths who
> are GOOD, loving, caring and for the most part, not
> particularly judgemental.Until it comes to issues
> which conflict with their beliefs. Such as rights
> for homosexuals.<<
Are you implying here that atheists do not fall in
this category? Just as there are pro life lesbians and
pro life atheists, there are judgmental atheists…
they do hold rather fierce opinions and opinions are
judgments.
Not at all. I’ve stated elsewhere that atheists are no different than theists … there are good ones, bad ones, judgemental ones and non-judgemental (to the best of their capacity) ones.
>>They can live together, but they
> can’t use the word MARRIAGE because WE own it. Good
> grief. It’s a WORD. You do not own it, nor can you
> legislate love. You know, approximately one in ten
> people throughout the world (and in many animal
> species, too!) is born with the genetic makeup to be
> homosexual. One in TEN, folks. The ancients knew
> this, and it was accepted as normal. <<
But it seems to me that it was accepted as normal for
men largely NOT for women. I agree you cannot
legislate love, and marriage, frankly I don’t care,
never been a proponent of marriage as it exists now,
and the Noah’s Ark idea of couplehood.
Honestly I do not know =how much= more it was accepted for men than women, but historically women have always gotten the short end of the stick. (yes, pun intended.) I’m pretty traditional in that I like marriage. It works for me… and I think everyone else should have the RIGHT to have it IF they want it.
>>Only when
> modern religions entered the picture did we begin to
> remove rights from folks who are in the minority due
> to the accident of birth. And here again the list
> goes on, of peoples who are treated badly in one way
> or another simply because they hold a different
> belief or live a different way than we do.
>
> So you wonder, does Ms. Caraleisa see any good at
> all in religions? Yes, actually, I do. Just as
> religion has its overwhelming dark side, it also has
> a beautiful, good side. It’s inspired some GREAT
> music! There is much GOOD done in the names of the
> assorted dieties, albeit along with the good is a
> strong ’suggestion’ that the recipient should, in
> abject gratefulness, adopt the beliefs of the givers
> (which is a gift with strings. Ugh.).<<
Religion has inspired some of the most sensual poetry
(Mirabai’s poetry about Krishna the god as her lover
is pure orgasm), sculpture, theatre, philosophy, good
governance, sponsored mathematical and scientific
these… the concept zero came from the calculations
and ponderings of Hindu sages. Religion in Hinduism is
not all ritual; it is also how you live your life.
Saying sorry before you die is not a place in heaven,
besides heaven is really different than this milk and
honey and vestal virgins in other religions. Religion
is also tradition, which is why the family is such a
strong unit in India, in Islam and amongst the Jews.
Community is a notion spawned by religion, and so is
standing up for human rights, as Gandhi advocated.
Religion also gave us the Kama Sutra, free schools
roads, benevolent kings like Ashoka who on seeing the
carnage at the battle of Kalinga, gave up his king
status and converted to Buddhism; like King
Harishchandra who have all his personal wealth away;
and like Gautama Buddha who on seeing human misery
left his wife and newborn son to a life of
meditation. Religion has given us a lot and to discard
it because of a few arsehole politicians, priests,
bigots and pedants; now that is arrogant, careless and
disrespectful.
Agreed that there is both good and bad in religion. I am not sure I agree with some of your claims, such as religion giving us roads, but I’m not going to argue it as it’s not particularly relevant to our current discussion.
> There is the mental COMFORT embraced by the
> ‘faithful’ in prayer and acceptance. The social
> benefits of being together with others.<<
There is mental confort whether you read Thomas More,
Mirabai, the Rig veda, and as my atheist uncle would
say, religious texts have the best wisdom, just idiot
translators. Let’s not throw the baby with the bath
water. Let’s not reinvent the wheel; when we have
barely begun to use the one we have. How many of us
have really read all the religious texts we have? How
many of us have explored the real meaning behind
religious practices? Yes there is comfort, and
community. How is that any different from a group of
atheists sharing their ideas?
It isn’t any different. Did it appear to you that I said so?
>>I know that
> on her deathbed, it gave my grandmother tremendous
> comfort to pray the rosary. I even ‘donated’ a
> priest friend of mine to the assortment of priests
> who celebrated her funeral mass. I did it for her,
> because I loved her so much, and knew that would
> have given her comfort to know in advance, as well
> as comforting her children and grandchildren who
> were still Catholic. (I admit the idea of eternal
> life scares the crap out of me. . . visit
> www.philosoraptor.com and read the essay by Lee on
> eternal life.)<<
That was really lovely of you. I celebrate Christmas
with an atheist husband because it means family time
to him. He also tells me the Celtic reasons and the
pagan reasons for X’mas’s existence. But for him,
Christmas is family time and warmth, love and laughter
and lots of eating and drinking. The Hindu eternal
life and rebirth actually comfort me. Knowing that my
arsy-ness in this life will need to be paid off my
being a better human being (or cockroach, depending on
what I come back as! ;-))rather than living with the
guilt or sadness of having hurt someone.
Thanks. I did it because I loved her more, probably, than any other relative in my life (save my immediate family.) And I knew that it was symbolic for her, as well as a comfort to her kids. The concept of life being this and this alone for ME is most comforting to me. I don’t care to make up for or benefit from who I have been in another time or place. THIS is it for me. Christmas is a time for family and love and warmth and togetherness for me as well. That’s why we celebrate it. Plus I love giving presents… Any excuse will do!
> Which means I do NOT have any intention of telling
> YOU that you cannot believe whatever it is that
> boils your water or freezes your fears.<<
You could’ve fooled me!
Really??? You think that because I am stating what *I believe, I think *you must also believe it? I do not… precisely because it’s pretty clear to me that THAT street runs two-ways. I will always respect your (generic) right to any belief you hold (while not necessarily respecting the BELIEF itself), as I said, until you try and make me believe or live by it. THEN we have issues.
>>That is,
> UNLESS and UNTIL you presume to tell ME that I must
> also follow in your footsteps. I will not - I
> CANNOT!, and I will never tell you you must follow
> in mine. This country was founded BECAUSE religion
> had so mucked up the world that many fled to the
> ‘new’ world for the freedom to believe as they will.
> Now, some obsessive Christians want to change that,
> to make Christianity the religion of the state, and
> worse, the tenets of Christianity the LAW OF THE
> LAND.<<
Now see religious oppression was not the main reason
for moving here, in my understanding of history. Or
else why would we not see many signs of Native
Americans following their own faith? As an old friend
of mine, a Flathead Indian told me, “Who gives a shit
about the Native Americans?” I do not see any respect
shown to the original owners of this country. The
newcomers from Europe act as if this was always their
land, their language, their religion. Why were the
slaves converted? For all my country’s problems, we
truly are the only secular country in the world; and
no I am not trying to sound American and using “XYZ in
the world”. But after having lived in Europe and
America, one thing is clear: I can practice my faith,
I can dress in my cultural traditions, and speak my
mother tongue with no repercussions. I cannot do that
anywhere else. America is afraid of multicultural
anything: it all boils down to the need to see Main
Street USA, homogenisation and unireligion. And the
Starbuckisation of the world. Secularism is also
expressed by showing respect for other religions and
allowing them to practice, celebrate their faiths. We
all know that this is not the case in America.
Initially, religious freedom was one of the most driving reasons for the early settlers. Since then, in the last 150 yrs or so, it’s been opportunity.
That said, one of the incredibly disastrous facts about our ancestors search for religious freedom, and yes, founding this country on that search, was their abject refusal to extend that freedom to the peoples already here… to the slaves they brought here, and eventually, to one another in many cases.
Further, I agree with you about the state of such freedoms in America. That is precisely WHY I am writing these types of essays… because we certainly ARE NOT practicing what we preach — unless it is conVEEEEENient for us. Which means, we’re hypocrits.
> No, NO. No. It is not now, and it must never be
> mixed with the state. Neither your gods nor my
> atheism.<<
You do mean, “Neither your faith or mine”? And I agree
state and religion cannot be mixed.
No, darlin. Again, a LACK of faith is not a faith. Can it be pursued with religious-type fervor? Sure. But that doesn’t make it fact.
There is NO NEED for any type of belief in
> this category to have any place in a government
> which should be by and for ALL the people of the
> land, be they the majority or any minority. I’ll
> fight for equality for all with everything I have in
> me. For YOU and your right to believe, and for those
> of us who differ from you in so many ways, so that
> we ALL can enjoy a life of freedom and conscience.
> (Thankfully, there are many theists who realize this
> is not appropriate -for excellent explanations visit
> and join www.au.org)<<
Most people in Europe, don’t really care. I think this
is a polarising issue here more than anywhere else in
the world that I’ve seen. there are always religious
pockets, but if you take France as an example,
churches are empty…. no priests!
Ha. Yes I knew that about Europeans being essentially agnostic in general. But I didn’t know France had a priest shortage. Just like the U.S.! And you’re right, the issue is much more important here in the U.S. than in many other countries, most especially in Europe. I hope we get to the point of disinterest in the issue, and thus, disinterest in pursuing others who are different, as our European friends have, and SOON.
> And so on this Christmas (or, insert your religious
> event of choice), 2008, I wish you joy, peace,
> health, understanding and compassion for all - no
> matter what you believe. <<
I wish you the same…. even though I am a
Hindu/Buddhist and other things ;-)… I’ve been
wished Happy Channukah and Merry Christmas and a
couple of weeks ago, Eid Mubarak! And as I did in
India, I wish them right back.
Well, I’m an atheist/buddhist, so we’re not so far apart, are we! I also wish everyone the same whatever back at them! Why not? It’s a WISH for happiness, a gesture of friendship and love…
>>And I wish you . perhaps
> .. a little comforting common sense, too.<<
Now that sounds a bit arrogant….
Hmmm , well… ok, it is. You get the last word, I see. <GRIN>
I genuinely care about people and their beliefs and there futures. That is part of being a Christian. I’ll understand if you want to discontinue dialoguing… 