Liam Murray has a nice piece on the Democrats' attempts to wrest the "Christian" vote from the Republicans. Liam's no religious nutter so his views bear weight:When UK commentators (usually from the secular left) criticise the influence of religion in American politics the normal target is the Republican party - an understandable position given the last 6 years and Bush's alarmingly regular invocation of 'God'. However, any hopes that the Democratic revival (either in Congress or probably the Whitehouse come '09) would see faith relegated again may be dashed by this story.
Fed up with Republican's claims of a monopoly on Christian values Linda Seger has written a book called "Jesus Rode a Donkey: Why Republicans Don't Have a Corner on Christ". I haven't read the book but there's an excellent podcast discussing many of the key issues over on Truthdig.com.
I don't subscribe to the militant atheist nonsense about banishing religion from politics altogether - too many good people have been inspired or sustained by a private faith. I still however think it should remain a largely private matter so I can't say the notion of Clinton / Obama or Edwards trying to wrestle a set of supposedly Christian values from McCain / Guilliani or Romney is a particularly appealing sight!
This was answered by someone named Paul [is there something in that name perchance?]:
All religion is primitive. It is a throwback to a mystical wish to explain without understanding. The "modern" religions are no more sophisticated than such things as tree worship. As an atheist I have no problem with people having "a faith" and will continue to support their right to celebrate their primitive comforts.
I replied:
Remarkably primitive, ignorant, ungracious and illogical comment from Paul Macmanomy. Typical atheist [and they like to think of themselves as positive].
He ignores the sustenance that not just faith but organizations like the Salvation Army and others afforded people during times of crisis such as the two wars. Though they preached, it was the example they set which scored better with the average person who went through those crises.
I may be wrong and correct me please but I never heard of atheist soup kitchens or shelters during those periods of crisis. Where were the socialists on the street giving sustenance at that time? To what did their rhetoric inevitably amount?
I haven't yet seen evidence to contradict the conclusion that atheists are truly ignorant people, with an immense sense of self-delusion and an even greater sense of denial, masquerading as intellectualism and enlightenment.
Of course, they would accuse me of the same self-delusion and sense of self-righteousness, of seeing my opinion as the only valid one. Of being insufferably smug and deserving of a pointed stick in an unpleasant Edward II type way. Perhaps they're right.
You're a bit harsh on us atheists [ok, I'm an agnostic] aren't you? It's actually quite hard to live without a faith, you know. It takes your hope away. I don't think there's such a thing as a "typical atheist". I know plenty of atheists/ agnostics who do good works. There were plenty of "soup kitchens" manned/ womaned by us socialist heathens during the Miners' Strike of the Thatcher era - and they were needed.
ReplyDeleteFor more on atheism, see this post on An Insomniac
ReplyDeleteThanks for the mention, Calum.
ReplyDelete"I never heard of atheist soup kitchens or shelters during those periods of crisis."
That's because when we do charity work we don't do it in the name of atheism, but basic human compassion. Only religious groups, political parties and corporations need to advertise while helping others. We simply get on with the job at hand and don't worry what those in need think of our metaphysical beliefs.
Good comment, people. I wondered today how this one would go down.
ReplyDelete..and thanks for the mention James.
ReplyDeleteRe: Matt's point. I accept that atheist charity work is often by definition anonymous because they (rather 'we' - I am one!) don't operate collectively the way religions do but that could be a rather convenient fact no?
James' point is one of scale and impact so, yes atheists can be compassionate and givings individuals but there's no evidence that they've done so on the same scale as religious groups.