The difference between being Christian, and being Christlike
The following represents the opinions of single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the SSU as a whole.
Being an atheist with many like-minded friends, I often detect great amounts of animosity toward the modern form of Christianity, and Evangelical sects in particular. Sometimes, this is directed at the Dominionists, as they attempt to override our laws in order to enforce Biblical law upon the rest of us. Other times, it stems from the frustration of being pre-judged as immoral, degenerate, foolish, or ignorant.
Today, however, I saw this animosity coming from the clear hypocrisy of purported "Christians," swirling around a recent news story:
Churchgoers more likely to back torture, survey finds
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new analysis.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/30/churchgoers-more-likely-to-back-torture-survey-finds/
These Christians claim to follow the man who has long been lauded for his pacifist philosophies which have affected Western thought for centuries.
I speak out of the frustration felt by many whom see these abhorrent policies sanctioned so, when I ask:
How is torture...
- Turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-42)?
- Loving thy neighbor (Leviticus 19:18)?
- Loving thine enemies (Matthew 5:44)?
To any who continue to sanction such acts, I quote your Christ (John 8:7), and say:
Let he who is without sin...
- Administer the first lethal injection
- Tie the first hanging rope
- Flip the first electric chair switch
- Waterboard the first suspect
The god of the Old Testament slaughtered mercilessly those who opposed him or his people. However, Jesus commands his followers to turn the other cheek, and leave the stone throwing to god himself.
To the self-proclaimed Christians that support and sanction torture, I ask:
Why do you disobey the god you claim to worship so? Why are you not the first to stand up against those who commit these atrocities in your names?
How dare you condemn the non-religious as amoral, when we reject torture in greater numbers, and even without divine commandments. Take the beam out of thine own eye before condemning the mote in ours (Matthew 7:3).
Buddhism and Atheism
Disclaimer: this post represents the views of an individual, and not of the Secular Student Union as a whole.
Today in my philosophy of religion course, we discussed Buddhism. I've heard a lot of atheists who, while incredibly derisive about Christianity, are incredibly enthusiastic about Buddhism. This was the case for most of the students in the class. I have to confess, I'm perplexed. But I think it says something about our psychological need for belief, for spirituality, that when people leave or lack theism, they feel a need to turn to some, any form of religion or areligion.
I don't understand the attraction of Buddhism. To me, much of it reads like a poetically written self-help book. The beliefs espoused by Buddha are not, in my opinion, religious, although it certainly depends on your definition of religion. Which is not to say that Buddhism isn't a religion. Despite the Buddha's rejection of any form of idiosyncratic metaphysics, the vast majority of Buddhists do hold such beliefs, believing in a soul, reincarnation, and nirvana as distinct from the body in this life. As in, the Buddha is basically telling people ways to be happier in this life. You can find many modern equivalents to his work that are better supported by recent psychological research in any supermarket. No one would call those religious. Neither would anyone study them in the way I have seen some atheists study the teachings of Buddha. Why are the works given such respect? I don't think atheists are giving Buddhism (if one can call the teachings of Buddha "Buddhism" when the two often have large metaphysical differences) the serious critical attention it deserves as both a theory of human psychology and happiness and as an ethical theory. It appears to me, instead, that they are almost giving it the respect of a somewhat dogmatic occasionally questioning religious practitioner. If you're interested in human flourishing and how to live, I would recommend a combination of modern positive psychologists and modern virtue ethicists as much better sources.
WOOOT!
While this isn't directly a religious issue, or at least shouldn't be a religious issue...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html?_r=1&hp
Bart Ehrman’s new book “Jesus, Interrupted”
Salon.com just published an interview with Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar, former evangelical Christian, current agnostic, and the author of a new book called "Jesus, Interrupted." I haven't read the book yet, but I am very familiar with Ehrman's work and I highly recommend his books. Salon describes him as "a bomb-throwing moderate, a non-dogmatic rationalist." His earlier "Misquoting Jesus" is a highly readable introduction to what bible scholars know about who wrote the New Testament and why biblical infallibility cannot be true. After a brief detour into the problem of evil with his book "God's Problem," he has now returned to his area of expertise and expands on themes from "Misquoting Jesus," and I am sure it will be a worthwhile read. Here is the article. And here is a video where Ehrman briefly discusses the new book, and here he discusses it on NPR's Fresh Air..