Religious Left

A couple of weeks ago, the Pew Forum showed off its latest numbers concerning what Christians are saying about what it takes to get into heaven. I was surprised by one of the statistics: 42 percent of Christians said that atheists could find their way past the pearly gates if they lead a good life.

Now, I know a lot of open-minded Christians who really do believe that Heaven or the afterlife takes all kinds--the old "there are many paths to God" idea. But I have also known some, even very good friends, who despite their affection for me, have told me that my soul is as good as barbecued lest I straighten up and hang with the J.C. Being that the "many paths" philosophy is quite a progressive one, I assumed that a vast majority of Christian Americans fell in the "barbecue" category. Not so, apparently! 42 percent is not a majority, of course, but it's damned closer than I thought atheists could get in the minds of our Christian neighbors.

(And, of course, the number 42 has its own significance, especially to atheists.)

So what's going on here?

Law professor Paul Campos op-eds in the Rocky Mountain News on the subject of the very real dilemma for progressive atheists: reconciling support for Barack Obama's politics with his overt religiousness.

Campos has apparently come across some folks bandying about the possible insincerity of Obama's religious professions, and it seems to be bothering Campos:

Since it's obviously absurd to claim that people like Obama lack the necessary intelligence to grasp these truths that are so self-evident to the fundamentalist atheist, our fundamentalist friend is left with a couple of options.

First, he can claim that the otherwise intelligent person has been, as it were, brainwashed by his upbringing, his education, his psychological quirks (this latter explanation is especially popular among those who see religious belief as a form of unconscious wish-fulfillment) or some other ideological factor that remains impervious to what fundamentalist atheists likes to call "reason."

[. . .]

The alternative is to assume that obviously intelligent people who profess religious belief are lying. This belief is reflected in the assertion, repeated several times in the responses to my blog post, that surveys showing atheists to be a small minority of the population are inaccurate, because lots of people who are "really" atheists - like, apparently, Barack Obama - lie about it.

I find myself conflicted. I have no ready resolution to my problem. As it says in my introduction on the sidebar, I'm a liberal libertarian with conservative leanings. What that really means is that I'm a registered Independant who doesn't concur with the party platform of the Republicans and Democrats. I am, with caveats, an Objectivist. I may address the hows and whys of those tenents at another time. I promised my conundrum though, and here it is.

These parents allowed their child to die because of their religious beliefs. They allowed a sentient being, a person with their whole life ahead of them, to perish because they believed that if their daughter was worthy, or their prayers fervent enough, she'd be healed by their magic sky fairy. They have murdered their daughter. I use that term, murder, intentionally. They have willfully denied their daughter medical care and because of that she is no more. This is especially tragic to me given that I'm an atheist. Without an afterlife to "live" for, or to transit to post-death, this result, death, is the worst outcome possible in my view. The parents failure to obtain proper medical care for a perfectly treatable condition is a travesty of both life and liberty.

The "State" is not necessary for many things. We are an over-regulated people in America. We have laws governing many of our behaviours. Of these laws, I believe most to be at best unnecessary, at worst intrusive. My conundrum lies in the straight fact that I'd like what these parents have done to be illegal. I WANT state intervention because I can't think of another way to handle such a case. This couple's daughter should be alive today. I'm not feeling my libertarian edge right at this moment and I'd like it back. Help?

I've heard and seen much mockery focused on the Tom Cruise Scientology video over the past couple of days. (I apologize if that link no longer works, but the video has been on and off the net and that's the best link I can find at the time of this article.) The truth is, while I believe that atheists (especially agnostic atheists), in general, have a leg to stand on in this case, I don't think the rest of the godders, or innumerable other groups, do. Let's look at a few things that Cruise says.

Tom Cruise: ...I think it’s a privilege to call yourself a Scientologist, and it’s something that you have to earn because a Scientologist does... has the ability to create new and better realities and improve conditions. Being a Scientologist, you look at someone and know absolutely that you can help them.

"But that’s what drives me... I know that we have an opportunity to really help... effectively change people’s lives and I am dedicated to that. I am absolutely, uncompromisingly dedicated to that.

Replace the words “Scientologist” with the words Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Nazi, Feminist, Vegan, vegetarian, socialist, communist, capitalist, geek, Sikh, or even self help guru and you'll see what I mean. This statement, minus the maniacal laughter, could have come from any of the groups I listed and a whole lot more. Let's move on to the next set; shall we?
more below the fold

MY INAUGURAL ADDRESS AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD

Alvin Miller

(Note: This blog is identical to that on my site. I recommend you clink on the link below to get a more readable version of it than here. Also, Firefox browser blocks the annoying Angelfire popups.)

http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman

TOPICS

Preface MY INAUGURAL ADDRESS AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD
Introducing Myself
I'm the Captain
The Joke
The Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead
The Taboo
White Armband
Instant Prophet
The Witches
My Favorite Sport

In a discussion today in a small diary on dKos, I made this comment:

I carry a gun only for self-defense in the gravest extreme. Only when my life, or the life of another innocent party, is at risk would I ever consider using such a weapon. Those are also the only conditions which would allow me to use a gun or any other lethal force.

To which someone else made this response:

I understand your point of veiw, however to me, it just says that you have decided that you are willing to be a killer under certain circumstances. That it is in compliance with the law does not make it any more morally defensible.

I hang out a fair amount on Daily Kos, and have been there for ages. It's an odd little slice of Americana - generally left/progressive, intelligent and educated people who share the goal of furthering Democratic candidates and objectives. Naturally, it is subject to its own cycles of rants and obsessions, when one topic gets everyone's dander up, or one faction takes on another.

There are a fair number of atheists there, who generally hang out with everyone else without provoking a fight - the site is about politics, not religion, after all. But every now and then something happens to cause this amorphus group to gel, and I find it very insightful when that happens.

I was busy with other things yesterday, so didn't spend a whole lot of time at dKos, so I missed one such convergence. This morning I saw a diary, which lead to another, which cited two others. Here they are (though I caution you that some of them are huge - with upwards of 800 comments - ungainly things which may give your computer indigestion):

Richard Dawkins Video Collection - In Your Face Atheism

"sectarian violence" - 3.9 million hits
"secular violence" - 451 hits

Promoted from the diaries of PastorDan by DarkSyde. Dan is a United Church of Christ minister living in Central Pennsylvania. He has degrees from the University of Wisconsin and Emory University.

No, he didn't!! Shut up!! No way!!

Orrin Hatch did not just compare John Roberts to my Lord and Savior, did he?

Did he?

'Cause if he did, it's really bad timing. I am fresh out of outrage today.