![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Massive Christian/Atheist thread
The Christian/Atheist thread that I started a while ago over on Askville has gotten HUGE - it's up to 343 posts with no sign of slowing down - and has taken some VERY odd twists and turns (among other things, I was recently accused of being a racist and genocide supporter).
I'm thinking about copying ALL of my posts from Askville over to my journal, because I really do think that the whole site could easily disappear at any time. In the meantime, here's my latest comment:
Apparently I shouldn't sleep. Because as soon as I do, things go crazy here!
No, actually, I'm glad to see that the conversation is still continuing. Let me see if I can start catching up:
"I wasn't going to post on this anymore but since you insist."
No no no - I do not insist. That's hardly my perogative. I'm glad to see that you've decided to continue, but please don't ascribe your participation to coercion on my part! I don't want you to blame me if things go badly here at some point (unless, of course, they go bad specifically because of MY actions).
All this is giving me a very strong sense of deja vu. To be honest, I anticipated that you would be thinking about leaving at about this point. All of this thread is surprisingly similar to other conversations I've had and viewed on this topic, both here and elsewhere. This is really very interesting, because where there's an unexplained pattern, there may be an opportunity to discover something new.
"I can't agree with turn the other cheek all the time. I believe it's important for self preservation to stick up for yourself ."
That seems reasonable to me, and I'll readily agree that I was being snippy (or worse) with the "turn the other cheek" line. I have a weakness for irony, among other things.
It's interesting that I feel that I have to worry about everything I write in this sort of conversation, and take extra pains to avoid writing anything that might be misinterpreted. When dealing with Christians online - and in this case, I'll even say it's the substantial majority of Christians, not just "some" - I can't help but feel that there is a spring-loaded trap hidden in the conversation. That "trap" is that if I say something that can possibly be interpreted in a negative way, even if it's a stretch, the odds are excellent that it will be so interpreted (or misinterpreted). So I have to be on my best behavior.
Which I can't always be, of course. Nobody can. I make mistakes, and get pissed off, and say things that I shouldn't. In this case, my urge to share a favorite old science fiction story led to the interpretation that I was a racist and supporter of genocide. Which is particularly ironic, since my family suffered great deal from a large-scale genocide for racial and religious reasons.
I did mock goldie080, although I tried to be gentle about it. The truth is that I don't understand what she's saying, usually, and in my heart of hearts I suspect that's because a lot of it might not actually make any sense. I notice that many people don't respond to her statements, or do so in a most superficial way; when I try to make a substantive response, she has chosen not to engage with me. That's a little disappointing for me, but it's her perogative.
I thought of her as - and I'm sorry that I can't put this in a non-offensive way - a sort of airy-fairy New Age Christian. So when she suddenly bared her fangs, fangs I hadn't suspected that she even had, I was both surprised and a bit pissed off. I'd been trying to reach out, after all.
Now, as for the rest of your comment (about atheists removing God from schools, currency, the Pledge, etc.) - that seems to have been chewed over fairly well later on in the DB. Yes, "In God We Trust" was added to currency and "Under God" was added to the Pledge in the 1950s at the height of the cold war; Republicans and the Knights of Columbus were the primary agents of those changes. The purpose of the "Christianization" of the pledge and the dollar was twofold, I believe: first, to differentiate the US from the "godless" Soviet Union. But the second, unstated reason was, I believe the more critical one: as a religious/political weapon against liberals and Democrats within America. I think that most atheists and unbelievers see it as nothing more than a big "f--- you" from the religious right. We've been a convenient scapegoat and punching bag for them for many decades.
I must admit that it is irritating to have the Pledge and currency quoted as justification for calling America a Christian nation. It's amazing that so many people assume that "In God We Trust" and "Under God" date back to the Founding Fathers.
In fairness, "In God We Trust" was used on some currency even back in the 1700s, I believe. But back then currency was issued through private banks, not the government - and the motto was not a standard feature on all currency.
As for "Under God", the Pledge was actually written in 1892 by a Baptist minister who was also a Christian Socialist. He didn't include God in the Pledge, so why did a bunch of twentieth-century politicians feel it necessary to shove God into what was originally a purely patriotic statement?
Part of being an atheist in the US is repetition. We see it a lot. The "Christian Nation" meme. Pascal's Wager - I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen that one (hundreds, at least). The "you're angry at God" comment. The "rebel" concept. It's the same stuff, over and over - and no matter how many times you disprove the untruths, they always come back. I can guarantee that I will have to debunk the currency and Pledge stories many times more in the years to come.
It's worth doing, but it does get a little tiring after a while!
Okay, I've gone on long enough. I'll be back later.
I'm thinking about copying ALL of my posts from Askville over to my journal, because I really do think that the whole site could easily disappear at any time. In the meantime, here's my latest comment:
Apparently I shouldn't sleep. Because as soon as I do, things go crazy here!
No, actually, I'm glad to see that the conversation is still continuing. Let me see if I can start catching up:
"I wasn't going to post on this anymore but since you insist."
No no no - I do not insist. That's hardly my perogative. I'm glad to see that you've decided to continue, but please don't ascribe your participation to coercion on my part! I don't want you to blame me if things go badly here at some point (unless, of course, they go bad specifically because of MY actions).
All this is giving me a very strong sense of deja vu. To be honest, I anticipated that you would be thinking about leaving at about this point. All of this thread is surprisingly similar to other conversations I've had and viewed on this topic, both here and elsewhere. This is really very interesting, because where there's an unexplained pattern, there may be an opportunity to discover something new.
"I can't agree with turn the other cheek all the time. I believe it's important for self preservation to stick up for yourself ."
That seems reasonable to me, and I'll readily agree that I was being snippy (or worse) with the "turn the other cheek" line. I have a weakness for irony, among other things.
It's interesting that I feel that I have to worry about everything I write in this sort of conversation, and take extra pains to avoid writing anything that might be misinterpreted. When dealing with Christians online - and in this case, I'll even say it's the substantial majority of Christians, not just "some" - I can't help but feel that there is a spring-loaded trap hidden in the conversation. That "trap" is that if I say something that can possibly be interpreted in a negative way, even if it's a stretch, the odds are excellent that it will be so interpreted (or misinterpreted). So I have to be on my best behavior.
Which I can't always be, of course. Nobody can. I make mistakes, and get pissed off, and say things that I shouldn't. In this case, my urge to share a favorite old science fiction story led to the interpretation that I was a racist and supporter of genocide. Which is particularly ironic, since my family suffered great deal from a large-scale genocide for racial and religious reasons.
I did mock goldie080, although I tried to be gentle about it. The truth is that I don't understand what she's saying, usually, and in my heart of hearts I suspect that's because a lot of it might not actually make any sense. I notice that many people don't respond to her statements, or do so in a most superficial way; when I try to make a substantive response, she has chosen not to engage with me. That's a little disappointing for me, but it's her perogative.
I thought of her as - and I'm sorry that I can't put this in a non-offensive way - a sort of airy-fairy New Age Christian. So when she suddenly bared her fangs, fangs I hadn't suspected that she even had, I was both surprised and a bit pissed off. I'd been trying to reach out, after all.
Now, as for the rest of your comment (about atheists removing God from schools, currency, the Pledge, etc.) - that seems to have been chewed over fairly well later on in the DB. Yes, "In God We Trust" was added to currency and "Under God" was added to the Pledge in the 1950s at the height of the cold war; Republicans and the Knights of Columbus were the primary agents of those changes. The purpose of the "Christianization" of the pledge and the dollar was twofold, I believe: first, to differentiate the US from the "godless" Soviet Union. But the second, unstated reason was, I believe the more critical one: as a religious/political weapon against liberals and Democrats within America. I think that most atheists and unbelievers see it as nothing more than a big "f--- you" from the religious right. We've been a convenient scapegoat and punching bag for them for many decades.
I must admit that it is irritating to have the Pledge and currency quoted as justification for calling America a Christian nation. It's amazing that so many people assume that "In God We Trust" and "Under God" date back to the Founding Fathers.
In fairness, "In God We Trust" was used on some currency even back in the 1700s, I believe. But back then currency was issued through private banks, not the government - and the motto was not a standard feature on all currency.
As for "Under God", the Pledge was actually written in 1892 by a Baptist minister who was also a Christian Socialist. He didn't include God in the Pledge, so why did a bunch of twentieth-century politicians feel it necessary to shove God into what was originally a purely patriotic statement?
Part of being an atheist in the US is repetition. We see it a lot. The "Christian Nation" meme. Pascal's Wager - I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen that one (hundreds, at least). The "you're angry at God" comment. The "rebel" concept. It's the same stuff, over and over - and no matter how many times you disprove the untruths, they always come back. I can guarantee that I will have to debunk the currency and Pledge stories many times more in the years to come.
It's worth doing, but it does get a little tiring after a while!
Okay, I've gone on long enough. I'll be back later.