#i am an atheist--more specifically a secular humanist atheist

[puppyluver256]

It's that time of year again, when everyone and their brother has Opinions (both justified and ridiculous) on the holiday season, specifically what is considered the Dominant Holiday in most countries that have a large share of the demographic of Tumblr users. So I have a few things on my mind that I want to say and I am going to say them.

To my fellow non-christians, whether you're of some other religion or an atheist like myself:

"Christian Atheist" is a specific label for an atheist who follows the non-magical parts of philosophy supposedly spread by someone named Yeshua/Jesus. They take on this label willingly, believing that the teachings associated with this individual had good merit without believing him to be the literal son of a god or that he literally turned water to wine or healed people with god-magic. The venn diagram between them and atheists who happen to come from a christian background is NOT a single circle.

"Cultural christianity" is a valid label for groups, whether small as a friend circle or large as a whole country, where one is implicitly or explicitly expected to be or at least follow along with christian practices. It is NOT something that can be applied to individuals willy-nilly. If someone does not want to be referred to as "culturally christian", you need to respect that regardless of their upbringing.

Yes, many atheists come from christian backgrounds. This does not mean they are still somehow christian forever. They are atheists, and unless they specify anything else that is all that they are. Do not apply a religious label to someone who is not part of that religion, as you have no idea whether or not that label may bring up old trauma and make them feel they can never escape from something they may have left, especially when that thing they left is constantly around them as just a normalized part of the surrounding locale.

Sidenote, not all atheists were raised in a christian setting. Some were originally from the other abrahamic faiths, some were from non-abrahamic faiths, and some were not raised in a religious setting at all. Some are completely anti-theist, some appreciate the positive affect other people may get from their religion(s). Don't assume that every atheist is the same cookie-cutter "reddit atheist" (whatever the association with reddit is supposed to mean) mold that seems to get applied to all atheists indiscriminately.

Another sidenote, atheism itself is not a religion. It is a lack of religion, outside of religions that are specifically atheistic (ie. without gods). Yes, it is protected in the idea of freedom of religion, as that includes freedom FROM religion.

Yes, Christmas is primarily a religious holiday, and yes, it DOES have a secular component despite what some people will insist (on both sides of the aisle). Don't assume that because someone wants to have fun with a tree and decorations and food and presents that they want the weird magic baby worship nonsense. Some people just want an excuse to celebrate after a long year regardless of whether or not they even have a religion, and we only have one widely-known holiday (sorry, Newtonmas) at the end of the year that can mostly be considered truly secular AND EVEN THEN there are cultures that ascribe religious aspects to it so we take what we can get. Excuse us if what we can get is what's most prominent in our area or what our loved ones already know. You wouldn't say an atheist that celebrates the big holidays of Judaism or Islam or any other religion is doing something religious just because they wanted to spend time with their friends and family doing something fun as part of a special occasion, so stop saying everyone who willingly participates in Christmas is willingly participating in christianity.

To the christians, specifically the ones who are more obnoxious about it:

Don't get on people's case if they don't care for or even legitimately hate Christmas. I'm sure there's something that "everyone else is doing" that YOU don't care for, so let them be frustrated in peace. At the very least, lend a shoulder and let them vent, but don't pressure them into doing the Christmas thing if they don't want to and would instead prefer either celebrating something else or nothing at all.

There is no "war on Christmas". Secular people have never attacked Christmas to the degree that the right-wing nutjobs pushing this rhetoric have insisted. In fact, the only times that anyone has proposed or even enforced a ban on Christmas, it was another sect of christianity. Someone saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" is not going to kill you, and no one's trying to "take the christ out of Christmas" by merely celebrating a holiday without the religious trappings. Get over yourselves and take your persecution complex to the garbage where it belongs.

Remember there are other holidays in December and that some people have better things to do than be pestered and bothered by the constant reminders of your holiday. Let people live their lives without trying to wedge your religion into it.

[theshedding]

Family, Grief, Religion & Manners

So the day (or day after) my Mom died exactly two months ago, one of her favorite cousins of her age group called me to offer me his condolences. This cousin lives in Hampton, VA and is a retired, married professional living a solid middle class, boomer life. Yet he never called to check on me/her (except once in the hospital), never came to see about her or send a birthday card or flowers in the year and some months she was home.

Until she passed. Then he calls me; after initially offering condolences, he quickly launched into his own grief narrative around his mother some years back (centering himself), going on and on…and on.

Then he asks “Are you a Christian?” I say “No, we’ve had this conversation before” (re: we talked extensively about my non-belief in 2022, though he didn’t recall). He then begins to say, “Iook, I know you don’t believe, but I want you to know if you just call on the name of Jesus and say his name 3x every time you miss your mother, that feeling will go away!”

Stunned, I say nothing. He pauses and goes on. “Trust me, it will work! I promise you.”

He kept repeating this and centering his own story of grief-rather than saying something helpful or consoling. I could go on….but the point is, in the immediate aftermath of my mom’s death, I was being forced to engage his theological views and false gospel…even though he knew I was not a believer. In fact, BECAUSE I am not a believer. As the call drew to a close, I remained mostly silent, placated him a bit, made no promises and ultimately, politely ended the call.

___________________

The point of this story? As I have been wrapping up sending the thank you cards to those who came to the service (or couldn’t come)-today I kept the promise I made to myself following the call with this cousin and decided to send him a very customized, special message. Let’s just say “it’s been in my spirit” to address him.

This is how I put my feelings into words:

Dear Cousin, I hope you have had a good holiday season and start to the new year. Thank you again for your condolences last November, and for the loving card you mailed.  I write however, both to acknowledge and draw attention to a great offense I took during your phone call in the immediate days following my mother's transition. Out of respect for the loving friendship the two of you shared, and my grief and shock, I listened to your evangelism over the phone but chose not to offer a rebuttal at the time.  However, following critical reflection I am afraid there is one. Saying "Jesus three times" to alleviate the grief of my mother (or any loved one) does not and did not "work". But it did serve as a crude and misplaced effort to wield power and privilege over someone who has politely already expressed to you their disbelief in the tenants or claims of your faith. Imposing Christian mantras upon someone who expressly does not share Christian beliefs -for a variety of reasons- is inappropriate, offensive, and unbecoming, in fact. You did this repeatedly over your phone call. Had I been Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Yoruba or of any other faith, I imagine you might have extended more courtesy and respect for my beliefs than what I listened to on the phone. But apparently to you, a secular humanist and atheist does not get afforded the same courtesy or consideration-even given the death of his mother some 48 hours prior.  The truth is, I am not only a non-Christian, but I am also a secular activist, congressional advocate for Black Freethought, and a Black, Queer secular community organizer on these issues specifically: religious freedom, interfaith advocacy, anti-religious stigma, and linkages to Black and minority communities in health, sexuality, education, etc...You show no interest in the "why" of my non-belief; only that I am a non-believer and effectively targeted me for a Christian conversion on a call where I was grieving the loss of my mother. Might you ever wish to understand why I am-or others like me are no longer a Christian (or religious, generally), please consult my work; one of which is entitled "Where We're Headed" (wwh.podbean.com), an award-winning narrative podcast that takes a deep dive into Black history covering the legacy and phenomena of religious dissent as political resistance all around the African diaspora. There I engage in these and other related topics for anyone interested, no matter their faith. My mother knew these things about me-my non-belief and religious skepticism were no secret. And though she kept her faith (and I respected it), she also celebrated my work and was proud of my activism and political and cultural advocacy.  Please know I have no interest in your conversion or de-conversion; I respect and support your choice to believe -or not- based upon your autonomy if nothing else. But like many before me raised a believer who then changed my mind about their faith tradition, so have I. The right to change one's mind about any faith tradition at any moment-given sufficient and/or empirical evidence against it, is a right I claim proudly for myself. Losing a parent is not an opportunity to affirm your beliefs- but an opportunity to show care, interest, comfort, and sensitivity to those who cared for, and showed up for that loved every day during their last years-even to those who are atheists.  Given those two options, an unequivocal "I'm so sorry for your loss" will always suffice for a better message of condolences. Sincerely, -R

Podcast: “Where We’re Headed” W: wwh.Podbean.com // Produced by Fibby Music Group, LLC  Sponsored by the DC Commission on the Arts & Humanities

I said what I said. This was wholly inappropriate; I will say what deserves to be said.

Besides, he didn't even come to the funeral.

[edenfenixblogs]

So, funny story. I answered yes, but not because of blind belief. And when I first realized my answer was yes, nobody was more shocked than me.

I was fortunate to attend Jewish Day School in my youth. And, because we don’t have hell, we were encouraged to look into and understand other faiths to the best of our ability. Not to convert, if we didn’t want. And not to NOT convert. Conversion wasn’t really a part of the conversation.

Being Jewish means emphasizing and supporting your community—not just your Jewish community, but any community you find yourself to be a part of. And we all obviously knew from experience that religious and ethnic groups play a huge role in defining community. Thus, how can we be good global citizens and live up to our responsibilities as Jews if we don’t learn as much as we are able about other religions and cultures?

We had scholars and faith leaders come to our school from a variety of different faiths (yes, including Islam, Indigenous American nations, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and others) over the years to explain the tenets of their own faiths and how they view community and also their own faith’s history with Judaism. We also had atheists speak—secular atheists as well as Humanist Jews.

I’m so glad I had these experiences. It really shaped who I am as a person and how I move through the world. Because there is nothing punitive in Judaism that occurs if you decide not to be a Jew, I genuinely considered each of the faiths presented relative to my own. While I have no view about which religion is “best,” I did determine that I simply vibe best personally with Judaism. There’s a lot in it that really suits how I think and feel and the parts that challenge me feel like positive challenges that lead to growth rather than points of frustration that I have difficulty reconciling.

But G-d? I wasn’t sure. Was I going to stay Reform or be a Humanist? I waffled about it for years.

It wasn’t actually until I was in a non-religious school for high school and studying IB Higher Level Chemistry that I decided I really believed in G-d. (Indicating the specific chemistry class, because sleep deprivation may have had something to do with my epiphany LOL. But I promise that upon a good night’s rest I still thought the same way).

I had learned about atoms and such back in middle school. But it wasn’t until high school that I learned about the concept of entropy.

Entropy: The very basic, true, scientific concept that all systems tend toward disorder.

It's why things decay. It's why things die. It's the concept central to everything from thermodynamics to statistical mechanics.

And whatever else I believe, I believe in science. Always.

So, one night while trying to write a lab report on just... so very little sleep. Astoundingly little sleep. How-Did-I-Survive-Level sleep deprivation, I sort of had...an epiphany I guess.

All things tend toward disorder. Things decay. Things die. Things fall apart and lose heat and get messy.

But here we are.

Somehow, from the vast expanse of nothingness, we are here on a little floating planet in the middle of nowhere outer space...living. And not just that, but we were brought into existence in the first place. And when people do decay and die and turn to dust (and even less dramatically, when someone so much as exhales a breath) the particles and atoms that make up their entire being spread throughout the world. The breath becomes part of wind that blows across towns. Someone cries outside and their tears evaporate into the sky and turn into rain that falls thousands of miles away. People long dead have been buried in the earth and their dust has fertilized trees, and those trees provide shade to passersby who breath their CO2 onto it, and it turns that CO2 into more oxygen we all breathe. Or maybe the tree has been chopped down to provide lumber for homes that house people. And those people live and grow and fall in love and make more people all from the scattered and decayed remains from a past that fell and decayed so long ago that most if not all of it escapes human and cultural memory.

If all systems tend toward disorder and things are bound to fall apart, then it sure is remarkable how -- despite everything -- they seem to come together again, too.

Even the very concept of objects. We're held together by very small but very strong ionic and covalent bonds. None of our atoms even touch each other. On a sub-microscopic level we're held together with, essentially, superglue, air, and hope. It's amazing to me that we don't just pass through each other. It's amazing that these loose collections of atoms form whole human beings with sentience and nervous systems and hormones and emotions.

And it's amazing to me that they keep doing it!!!

After a body has decayed and even the atoms themselves have decayed they keep crashing and colliding and forming new bonds and from that chaos comes air and earth and mineral and vegetable and animal and eventually humans again.

How is that possible? In an existence and world and universe ruled by chaos where we are all subject to the inevitability of destruction and decay and disorder, the chaos forms once again to order.

This realization led me to whisper to myself at 5am, "Ah, shit. I think I believe in G-d."

Do I know what that means exactly? No. Of course not. How could i know that???? But at the very least, whatever it is that keeps driving our atoms to coalesce and make us: that's G-d to me.

But why shouldn't it mean some sort of omnipotent sentient higher power? I'm not sure it does mean there is one. But if this random trillions upon trillions of atoms that I call a body can come together and form the person who is typing all this out right now, why can't a whole bunch of other atoms do the same for that higher power?

Why are humans assumed to be the final endpoint of sentience crafted in this way? IDK, maybe we are all just part of a larger system that makes up G-d themself. Maybe Olam HaBa is just us distilling into our purest minimal sentient form. Maybe it's our own atoms briefly becoming part of the sentience that G-d enjoys? I truly don't know. Anything is possible. I don't claim to know anything.

I just don't think there's a lot of discussions about faith and higher powers in this way--beliefs not motivated by fear or by the unknown, but by the astounding nature instead of what we do know.

So yeah, I believe in G-d. This is why. You don't have to agree. That's also OK. I just had to share this because, as a kid, I didn't really believe I'd answer yes to a question like this. And if I did ever answer yes, I assumed it would be because of something that one of the many, many leaders of all different faiths I'd learnt from said.

I did not expect high school chemistry class to be the reason I believe in G-d. But life's full of surprises that way.

Suuuuper loaded question but humor me!

Feel free to explain your answer via reblog/tag if you feel comfortable doing so

All answers are perfectly valid and they don't make you any less Jewish!

[ragnell]

So we learn a bit more about MCU Gods in Thor: Love and Thunder. Spoilers in the cut, where I go into my thoughts on it.

Gorr's encounter at the beginning establishes that yes, there are way bigger assholes than the Egyptian Gods out there. The Ennead at least had "They abandoned us" as a response. Khonshu never abandoned his followers. But this sun-hat dude was like, the absolute worst god we've seen and that includes all the antagonistic deities like Hela and Ammit. If sun-hat dude had had the smallest bit of tact and compassion, this whole thing could be averted.

The blue people that Thor and the Guardians are defending are an example of the big deal with what Gorr is doing: Some gods have jobs. This pantheon was a set of gods that were actually protecting this people and this planet, and Gorr just tore through them willy-nilly.

Which brings me to my thing about Gorr. I find him extremely self-centered. Like many religious people, he sees faith as a barter system. You put faith and glory in, you get an eternal reward out. This leads to a morality system that is set by following rules from a deity not because they are the right thing to do, but because of what it will get you if you do or to avoid the punishment if you won't. Gorr's problem is his god didn't uphold the bargain, because his god was a lazy dick, but really... a good life should not be such a bargain. You're supposed to do what's right because it's right, not for some eternal reward.

Now, you may ask how do gods come in to a secular-humanist-sounding philosophy like that? Or am I an atheist? No, I'm a polytheist. I think gods exist as the personification of their domains, meaning they are generally beneficial divine being but are capable of causing great harm because they embody their domains. And since they embody their domains so readily, you should avoid depending on them to set morality or set things right without doing some work yourself, or to take care of you after death unless they are specifically a god of the dead.

If gods are a thing that exists, that the universe needs, then the universe must need them for something other than to take care of humans like their favorite pets. Gods would necessarily have jobs, and those jobs would be bigger than me.

The idea that some gods have jobs but not all gods have jobs seems to work in the MCU. We see at least one pantheon keeping invasions off of a planet. Were they a colonial power like Asgard, guarding realms they had conquered? Maybe, but going in and slaughtering them and leaving a power void doesn't really help does it.

We do have one pure example of a working god from Moon Knight, Taweret, who is also potentially an example of the trouble you get when you take out a working god. In the comics we see Anubis sailing that boat, and Taweret is using his scales. It's likely Taweret is a fill-in because this is one of those necessary positions for gods.

In the Omnipotent City we see a council of gods from different pantheons sitting around with Zeus as the leader. This is our example of not all gods having jobs. Zeus is of course, planning an orgy. In the comics, this council of gods is led by Odin, who uses this platform to raise an army and plan to kill the Celestials. I would gather that Odin had been on about that a lot in the MCU, given how Zeus responds to the Asgardians showing up with "I thought we didn't have to deal with you since Odin died."

The women on the dais with Zeus are credited as the "Zeusettes", so they are not Hera, Aphrodite, Artemis or Athena. Athena's existence is still up for debate. Artemis is in the crowd. Minerva is in the crowd, in armor, and I think she is the only "wisdom" deity in the room. There is an idea that Minerva is more associated with pure intelligence than wisdom, which is interesting when you consider the continued absence of Khonshu's bestie Thoth, Egyptian god of wisdom and a moon god, and the fact that wisdom deities Odin and Frigga are dead in the MCU. (Hermes is also not present, and he's sometimes connected to Thoth by later and modern worshippers so that's kinda of interesting too.)

Khonshu, of course, was not present nor was anyone on the Ennead. There was a kitty goddess credited as "Bast God", but I'm not sure that was The Bast. Could have been a daughter of hers. In the comics Bast, Thoth and Ptah go south to Wakanda and join that Pantheon and that is why they aren't around.

I think the Othervoid is not the same ream as Omnipotent City, but is still not a place where Khonshu is welcome. (Because he'd be yelling. A lot.)

Really, using Gorr as a villain basically makes this whole thing "Khonshu Was Right: The Movie." Because Gorr was not right to start slaughtering every god he sees because of one asshole, but Khonshu is right that they shouldn't be hanging out in paradise while the people they said they'd protect are struggling and suffering.

I didn't believe for a second Thor had killed Zeus, but it's kinda funny he thinks he did. They would have come home to a bunch of angry offspring of Zeus if they actually had. Still, they know there's consequences coming and those consequences are going to be hilarious.

"Oh, are you here because I killed your father?"

"What? Fuck no. He's fucking fine. He's fucking Zeus. What kind of horseshit do you have for brains that you think you could kill fucking Zeus with his own fucking thunderbolt, you stupid fuckity fuckface."

"Oh, then we're cool?"

"No, I'm here to rip your face off by the beard and stick it up your arse because you put a hole through my dad's chest and took his thunderbolt."

This movie introduces Eternity, who is the God of the Gods of the Gods. He's above the Celestials and every pantheon and he embodies the multiverse itself. He is the root and the top of the tree. And he looked BEAUTIFUL in this. They talk about him like he's some sort of wishing well, like he'll just give you what you want and hell, maybe he IS so freaking high up the ladder that the effects of killing every god in the universe wouldn't really concern him. Maybe. Bringing one person back to life certainly doesn't sweat him. What's one more little lifeform that exists in one of his freaking cells, after all? I don't think he'd have granted Gorr's wish for destruction, though. The stakes were the kids in this one.

Speaking of this, very happy with Axl Heimdallson and even happier to see Valhalla in the credits. Lovely.

Now, as for whether this makes the gods in the MCU more confusing... Well, yes it does. We can't just write them all off as weird aliens that were mistaken for gods, they genuinely have some divinity here. And there's no Source Wall in Marvel to explain that shit, you just have to accept there are various different races of gods who have various rules and various cultures.

That's the big thing, though. Each Pantheon is a different culture and people. The Heliopolitans/Egyptian Gods are not going to go by the same limitations as the Asgardians/Aesir, and the Olympians are gonna be different from them and different from some alien race's gods. The Avatar thing seems to be a Heliopolitan thing, but it doesn't look like anyone else needs to deal with that. Other gods make divine weapons and use them to empower people. We see more of Thor's inheritance of the Odinpower here when he does that. Other pantheons don't have a "Keep a low profile" rule either, that seems to just be an Osiris thing.

The main thing here that we can learn about gods in the MCU across the board is that there are some shared rules (The Necrosword is a Death-by-sword), but there's a lot more specific things. (Everyone has their own afterlife, everyone has their own treasures and relics, everyone has their own pantheon.)

There is an AGREEMENT that they don't mess with each other's followers, which is interpreted by some to mean you don't need to help other gods or their followers. Every pantheon's got their softies and their renegades, though, but this is a good explanation for why the ancient gods of the western world are pretty hands off. Monotheism is very widespread in western culture, to the point some of the gods' names are lost to history. They don't see it as their responsibility anymore.

[thesummerstorms]

As of 7-13-19, I just updated the about me page on my blog, but since Tumblr mobile won’t let you read pages (or at least won’t let ME read pages) I wanted a linkable post version as well. Updated Oct. 27th, 2020.

My online name is Rev. 

(It’s in no way related to my real life name, but that makes it much more comfortable for me to use online. I’ve also had it since I was ~16 and hanging out on FF.net, so it’s as much an identity as anything else at this point.) 

About Me:

Older than 21, younger than 30.

American (Texan to be specific) & white

cisfemale

currently identify as asexual and grey aromantic (???)

(but lbr, I have NO IDEA what's going on wrt romantic attraction)

Secular Humanist-ish and a deeply reluctant and unwilling atheist.

Middle School English Teacher

Semi-permanently stressed out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Has very cyclical and occasionally intense obsessions. sorry, followers.

Dog lover who currently can't afford dogs :(

I write critical analysis & headcanons for fun, but fic mostly eludes me

Things That Are Especially My Type™:

prickly or awkward female characters who make mistakes & fight things

female characters who are particularly competent and still emotional

female main characters who are good/compassionate but not sweet

character-driven sci-fi and fantasy

soft/sweet/supportive LIs who aren't women

competent/bad ass/ assertive female LIs with hearts of gold

little bit of High Romance tropes

Polyships, ships that are also strong friendships/teams, found families

Fae, Changelings, inscrutable magic, magic/fairy tale-style lore, tarot

sympathetic AI and/or clone plots

expansive world-building/lore that serves characterization

complex symbolism and imagery or the analysis there of

Things to know before interacting with the blogger:

Hi, I am by definition an awkward introvert! I tend to be very slow to reply to things, even things I'm excited about, and sometimes send stuff on anon while I'm getting to know a person.Sometimes I just get overwhelmed because I’m not sure what to say. I may take a while to follow back.

I have a weird relationship with Not Safe For Work content. Please just tag it somehow or give a content warning.

I find tumblr's attitude towards asexuality extremely draining/personally unhealthy, and therefore I block very easily.

I support the use of "queer" as an umbrella term and won't tag for it.

I miss writing literary analysis for college and it comes out in my tumblr posts

I talk way too much about Etain Tur-Mukan and that’s unlikely to change.

I am fairly drained by/anxious about current events and as of 2020 not talking about them much here.

I'm pro-choice (and will block you) and an ace/aro/trans/nonbinary/etc. inclusionist (and will block you).

[bougainvilea]

I’m becoming more and more aware that people online don’t really know what it means to be Jewish, so I’m making a helpful list!

Under the cut, I deal with the following things:

the difference between Judaism and Christianity 

the streams in Judaism and why they’re not denominations

Judaism as a culture

why Judaism is not an ethnicity (and why you can’t be half Jewish)

the word ‘goy’

historical antisemitism

Jewish rebellion

feel free to reblog, especially if you are not Jewish

To start off with, some definitions:

observant = the extent to which one considers themselves religiously Jewish as opposed to culturally/socially/historically/etc Jewish

to keep Shabbat = according to religious law, from Friday night to Saturday night you have to keep the sabbath holy, by following a bunch of rules like no starting a spark (which means no electricity or cars or anything), no picking up a pen, and a bunch of other things you can read about here. 

It does not mean christianity without the new testament. We have our own traditions, laws, and an extra book known as the Mishnah. Our traditions center around different things, our sabbath day is different, our days start in the evenings.

On this note, I’ve seen a post going around saying that Judaism is inherently different to xtianity, and it is 100% accurate. By which I mean, our laws are debatable. Even if you are 10000% observant, you could differ in tradition to someone else who is equally observant. You might be in different streams (see next dot point), or different cultural groups. This is beacause the words are interpreted differently by different Rabbis, and consensus is not wanted or needed. 

Judaism has streams. These are not similar to christian denominations. These streams are within similar communities and interact quite frequently. The difference between this and denominations is that Judaism is a culture (as I’ll get to later), which means that those who are “secular” (like me!) are not ‘just Jews not doing all the things they should be doing’ or ‘ignoring some of the laws’ - they have their own Judaism that is expressed through different practises and traditions, but they remain a community. Of course there are still people who consider themselves orthodox but only go to shul/synagogue on the High Holidays. But there are also communities of people who have interpreted Judaism’s multifaceted nature into their own unique brand of Judaism.

some examples are:

Ultra Orthodox - Usually what you see when you picture a Jewish person. Streimel (this hat so expensive), suit, study torah all day, pray very often, keeps Shabbat, etc. They are NOT NECESSARILY EUROPEAN. 

Reform - usually centered around the idea of ‘tikkun olam’ - which means repairing the earth - this stream is known in the Australian Jewish community for singing prayers to unusual tunes - my personal favourite is Adon Olam to ‘I Want It That Way’ by the Backstreet Boys (0:52 is when it gets Jewish lmaoooo). They differ from ultra-orthodox and orthodox because they “emphasize the evolving nature of the faith, the superiority of its ethical aspects to the ceremonial ones, and a belief in a continuous revelation not centered on the theophany at Mount Sinai.”

Secular Humanist - that’s me! I am atheist, but I am a part of the Jewish people and identify with the history and people within it. I feel a connection to the Jewish people’s struggles, revolutions, and liberations throughout time. I believe that Jewish people can create change and that we can use Jewish values and traditions to better the world without a focus on god. 

Judaism is a culture. This is the big one, and I feel that most people have heard this if nothing else. But let me specify; Judaism is also a religion. Judaism is associated with centurys worth of traditions and values and texts. And by texts I don’t just mean the Torah and the Mishnah - I mean every single Jewish philosopher or scholar or professor that has ever lived. Did you know that the famous 14th Century Spanish philosopher, Maimonedes, is known in the Jewish community as the Rambam (aka the Rabbi Moses ben Maimon = Rabbi Moses, son of Maimon) and wrote many a commentary on the holy books? Throughout the centuries, Judaism has gained an incredible collection of information and written arguments that have contributed to Jewish lives today. Synagogues, like churches, are great places of worship whilst also housing communities. Jewish people have stuck together throughout the years mostly out of necessity and safety and now have thriving communities of knowledge and culture! 

Judaism is NOT an ethnicity. This post started as a response to a post I saw calling someone “half Jewish, half Irish”. I tagged that you “can’t be half Jewish” and two people asked my why. This is why;

Before I continue this point, I received an anonymous message from another Jewish person saying the following; 

“we ARE an ethnicity (where do you think the curly jewish hair and aquiline nose on many jews - not all, but many - comes from?) but the reason we are considered 100% jewish if we are jewish at all is because we are a tribe and therefore if you are jewish you are considered 100% wholly part of the tribe to keep from any gatekeeping. but it is absolutely an ethnicity with an inherent religion, similar to native americans.”

this is a fair point, so maybe we are an ethnicity, but you can’t be “half Jewish” for the following reasons:

Part 1: Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany

Jews were outlawed from a lot of things in Nazi Germany, obviously. This started in 1933, but by 1935 the Nuremberg Laws passed. These (a) defined what it meant to be Jewish and (b) further separated them from society. 

The image below defined a fully German person (a  Deutschblütiger), a half Jew (a Mischling - “In German, the word has the general denotation of hybrid, mongrel, or half-breed.”), and a Jew (Jude). Essentially, if you were anywhere from 1/8 -1/4 Jewish, you could have Reich citizenship but still were at risk, whereas Jews (more than 1/4 Jewish) were obviously much more at risk. 

this is still today used to distinguish a Jewish person, but not in an antisemitic context. It is in fact used by Israel, so that all those who were targeted by Nazis are welcome to seek refuge and live in the intended state for the Jewish people, Israel. Anyone with 1/8 or more Jewish descent can very easily get Israeli citizenship. 

Part 2: Jewish Religious Law

according to Jewish Religious law, anyone with a Jewish mother is inherently Jewish. (also, anyone who converts - which is a 7 year process, by the way)

The reason these are relevant is because my point is that you can be ANY nationality, any ethnicity, and still be 100% Jewish. 

There are Jews of all nationalities - German Jews, Polish Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Latinx Jews, Israeli Jews, American Jews, Indian Jews, and many more! There are Jews of all ethnicities too - Asian Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Roman Jews, Black Jews, and many many more.

You cannot be “half Jewish, half Irish” because Irish people can and are Jews. Judaism isn’t a racial or ethnic or cultural group - it is a community that transcends all these things. 

A Goy is not a derogatory term, and you shouldn’t be offended by it. Honestly, I don’t think it’s fair for any non Jew to be offended by a word that Jews call them (see the next point), but regardless, goy is a normal word that I use a lot to refer to non jews. See this post for more information. I know some Jews still don’t use it because they know it makes people uncomfortable, but it shouldn’t. (plural is goyim)

We do carry the weight of one fucked up history. There’s a classic joke told at most Jewish Holidays - “They tried to kill us, we survived, let’s eat!”. It tends to accurately represent Jewish history. I honestly don’t know how much goyim know about Jewish history. I’m sure you have at least heard abut the Holocaust, because it was so systemic and systematic, but there are many other instances. If not, please read some online articles. Antisemitism is sometimes referred to as “the oldest hatred”, so here are some examples: (I apologise, this is mostly Europe centric)

destruction of both the first and second temple in biblical times by the Romans and the Babylonians

the spanish inquisition and the explusion from spain in the 1400s

Pogroms (especially in Europe, check out Fiddler on the Roof for an excellent representation)

an insane history of being shut off in our own communities - the first ghetto was created in Venice in 1516 and was seen as a positive thing because Jews had never had their own land before (that’s fucked up????)

blame for Jesus’ death evolved into the idea of a Blood Libel, which was the rumour that Jews liked to kidnap christian children and drink their blood or used it for ritual purposes (?????????) resulting in many christians lynching Jewish people

blame for the Black Death in Europe (because Jewish tradition cites that they have to be clean for Shabbat, so every Friday they bathed and therefore didn’t catch the plague??) 

on a non-European note, Ethiopian Jews were in such danger as recently as 1980 that Israel carried out a rescue mission which took 10,000 Ethiopian Jews through the desert of North Africa so they could live safely in Israel

We have never been quiet. Jewish revolution and rebellion has always existed. Examples are:

The literal story of Hanukkah

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (led by young people from the youth movement I attend to! this! day!)

on this note: Jewish people have many youth movements made specifically for political purposes, and have historically always been very well educated and passionate. I won’t talk about Zionism here, though I want to. That’s for another post. 

(note: Jewish bolshevism is antisemitic and just untrue)

refusing to convert to Christianity or any other religion the many, many times that we have been captured/the leadership in charge of us has changed (this is a big rebellious act in the spanish exile/the exile to babylon/etc)

the current head of the Jewish Agency (Natan Sharansky) was a rebel in the Soviet Union, fighting for freedom and democracy. 

We were LITERALLY so sick of antisemitism that 18-25 year olds went to Palestine and built a nation based on the idea of a socially just society (and kibbutzim)????? how it went after is another story but you understand what I mean when I say that we did not sit silently in Europe. 

So, there you have it - some Jewish facts and figures. I hope I taught you something new. If anyone has anything they’d like me to add, feel free to send me an ask! 

[apportioned-abortion]

The default assumption by people, at least in my experience, is that I am Christian unless I am very vocally opposed. I'd say it's similar to people assuming everyone eats meat unless the person they are talking to is extremely vocally opposed. The terms for atheism/atheist do seem to be more of a reaction to the fact that established religious beliefs are the norm. Anything else then has to be specifically opt-out, ignoring that religion is realistically more of an opt in system. I don't think the terms are very good. Defining a belief as a lack of something else is inherently going to skew opinion about the belief system and is not a very accurate or helpful way to describe a belief. I've heard a lot of people in atheist groups call themselves "secular humanists" or "egalitarians" (you can probably guess the type of man who joins an atheist group as a self-described "egalitarian"), I think as a response to that.

For myself, I use the term atheist very bluntly because of the negative connotation associated with it. I am typically pretty friendly and helpful to others, and in most contexts keep my beliefs and opinions to myself (about anything but especially religion). People tend to naturally assume that I'm Christian because 1. That's the default assumption here and 2. The positive traits I am demonstrating are things they would probably associate in their heads with active church members.

If my beliefs become relevant to the conversation, I prefer using the term atheist so that people can be exposed to positive associations with the term. If we already are getting along, I see people sort of stumble at me not hedging around the idea that I can be confident about my lack of religious beliefs while also being respectful and open to what they're saying about theirs. I don't think it always works in lessening people's judgment on the term and concept, but I have seen it work enough times to be worth continuing for me.

I think if religion wasn’t so vastly popular, there probably wouldn’t be a need for the word Atheist. It is kinda weird, like if someone asked what your favorite movie genre is and you said you don’t like movies, only for them to label you a fan of the Nonmovie genre. I think it also gives fodder to religious people who want to give atheism a false equivalency to religion. But I do personally resonate with the label a lot so I choose to use it. Plus I’m American so people here will 100% assume you are religious until told otherwise

I had a similar thought with distinguishing a disbelief or nonbelief in god vs. a belief that god doesn't exist in that if you had a parallel earth where belief in god never existed, I wouldn't consider their nonbelief as a belief that god doesn't exist. Philosophically, I think it's interesting and sticky, and I think it's an intersting look into the intersection of philosophy and linguistics/semantics, because the only way to describe our beliefs are through the words we have.

I've enjoyed all the ideas I've read about it today, I didn't expect so much response.

[confrontingbabble-on]

“The largest number was 42," the board member said. "While I have no specific knowledge, I am sure the number is significantly higher than those I know.”

Currently, more than 30 of the 535 voting members of Congress do not believe in God, the advocate said, though he said his work is nonscientific and doesn't include the newest members. The headcount includes members of both parties, he said.

If lawmakers are reflective of national demographics, there would be about 59 nonbelievers in Congress.

Leaders of advocacy groups for people without religion say it’s important for politicians to identify themselves to help break lingering stigma. “When people came out as gay, it changed the world for the GLBT community,” the advocate said, expressing optimism that Huffman’s admission will “stimulate more people to come out of the closet.”

The secular advocate uses the term nontheist, rather than atheist. There’s an argument that agnostics are by definition atheists, but using nontheist sidesteps the distinction.

Before Huffman’s announcement, only one sitting member of Congress, former Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., publicly said they were an atheist, in 2007. After he left office, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., also acknowledged his atheism.

Some sitting members of Congress do identify their religion as “none” — notably, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. — or unaffiliated.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., calls himself a humanist, but says he’s also Jewish.

Ron Millar of the Freethought Equality Fund PAC said the group would like more members of Congress to identify themselves as not believing in God.

“They just need a little encouragement,” Millar said. He said the fact that Huffman’s admission wasn’t a major news story may spur more disclosures.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/secular-activist-claims-at-least-30-closeted-atheists-in-congress/article/2640275

[msjsocsci]

BLOG POST #1

My local and global hybrid identities

I will admit I am not the most in touch with my local identity. Although many parts of my identity are tied intrinsically to the culture and practices found within the country, I lived in a household heavily entrenched in Western influence. As a result, a great deal of my interests, and beliefs are tied to this.

I think what is most Filipino about me is my attitude towards family as a daughter. I love my parents, grandparents, and other relatives very dearly. Many of the decisions I have made for my own life have been influenced by it, such as remaining in the Philippines rather than studying abroad, and even taking Chemistry rather than Physics, which would likely have taken me out of the country to pursue research. I would also say that my advocacies for social justice are heavily tied into my Filipino identity, specifically to the idea of kapwa, which is a distinctly Filipino concept.

What I think ties the most into my global identity rather than a local one are my beliefs and stances on certain issues. Unlike most Filipinos, who are largely Catholic or generally religious, I am an atheist. Tying into this is my being a secular humanist, a moral system that is largely unknown in the country. I am also a liberal, feminist, and member of the LGBTQ+ community, all of which are very different from the Philippines’ generally conservative culture. Certain talents of mine play into this as well, as my vocal training and training as a guitarist are heavily influenced by Western classical music, and musical theatre. Even my writing, which is heavily inspired by the melange of foreign books, video games, and media I consume takes on this quality. My art style is also heavily stylized, drawing most of its influence from Japanese art and media.

It is a bit shaming that I have so little of my own local identity in me. That my own creative output has so much foreign influence while I’ve largely avoided Filipino media throughout my life is very unfortunate,especially my inability to speak and write in Filipino as readily as I do in English. I firmly believe that it is possible to love a culture but still realize its flaws, and I think I should begin applying this more heavily to my own home culture. I think I have removed so much of my Filipino identity from my own because, in my youth, I was slightly ashamed of it due to how backwards I thought it was. I have since realized that mistake, and have been taking steps to rectify it.

As a young woman in a globalized society, it is inevitable that my identity be so heavily influenced by foreign countries. Creating a hybrid identity is inescapable, especially in the Philippines, where its culture is already so steeped in American and Spanish values and culture. This being said, it is time that I revisit the rich history and identity of my home country, and begin appreciating it for the beauty it holds. 

[automatismoateo]

I'm a hospital chaplain. Help me learn how to better serve you? via /r/atheism

Submitted March 31, 2019 at 07:49AM by miriamsophea (Via reddit https://ift.tt/2uGRsnj) I'm a hospital chaplain. Help me learn how to better serve you?

Background/Context: I'm a clinical chaplain at a large trauma 1 hospital. My role is to offer emotional and (when requested) spiritual support to everyone- staff, patients, and family members. I respond to traumas, codes, all emergent events, respond to visit requests, and round on all the floors, including our behavioral health units. The vast majority of my job is counseling. I help people process their (or their loved one's) illness/loss of ability/death. I offer a sounding board for people who just need to vent about the shit in their lives. I sit and just chat/watch NCIS/be a companion when someone is lonely or has dementia. I joke with the staff and bring them mid-shift coffee. I also do the other more "traditional" chaplain things like prayer, organizing a priest for sacraments, baptizing fetal demises, helping staff understand various religious and cultural customs, and doing death notifications with the docs.

I have a masters of divinity from a school that prides itself on interfaith education and I am endorsed by a Christian denomination that is extremely progressive (though I currently find myself learning more towards the agnostic/secular humanist camp.) I'm also a woman in her late twenties (which is not what people expect from us "clergy types.") I've worked in this field for almost three years and as I'm preparing for my board certification interviews, I've been reflecting on my practice and I have a few questions for all of you about how I can serve you better!

Questions:

When I introduce myself as a chaplain, people who aren't religious often bristle a bit. I totally get that! No one wants religion to be forced down their throat-especially in a healthcare setting. Is there a way that I can communicate that my primary role in the hospital is simply to be a secular soundingboard if you need to process anything?

I am called anytime there is a death/traumatic event/terminal prognosis, regardless of religious affiliation. How can I best support agnostic and atheist patients and family during that incredibly difficult time? My religious patients usually either want to pray or yell at God (which is also prayer..) What do you want? How can I facilitate that for you?

When I'm on shift, no one dies alone. I sit and hold hands with every patient who is at the end of their life if they don't have family there. I have a little "thank you for your life and the goodness you've brought to the world, it's your legacy" convo that I like to do with everyone, but are there any specific things that you think would comfort you? (Obviously you've never died before, so imagine!)

I just want to offer you the same companionship on your healthcare journey that I offer my religious patients/staff. I purposefully try to dress my age (so I'm more approachable looking) and I don't bring up religion or faith unless you do first. Are there other things I could do to make you feel more comfortable or should I just leave you alone?

Anything in general you'd like a religious professional working in healthcare to know?

Thanks so much for your time, everyone!

[puppyluver256]

Welcome to PuppyLuver Studios!

Jess / Pup | adult aged (June '92, you do the math) | they/them | nonbinary asexual lesbian | atheist/secular humanist

🐶 Snoopy Cooper | beagle, male | 7-29-23

💖🐶💖🐶💖

Thanks for stopping by my blog! I'm an artistic goofball who loves video games, animals, and food. This is a multifandom blog that also has original stuff, dog stuff, and Shenanigans. I hope you enjoy your time here, whether you're just taking a peek or decide to follow! ^u^

Commissions

Redbubble

Patreon

😨🏷️😨🏷️😨

If we're moots or you're following me, feel free to ask me if you need anything tagged for your personal comfort. I try to tag things for organizational purposes, but I can add extra tags if need be, whether it's a tag for the actual subject matter or you need a "(your name) don't look" tag. 💖

✋🚧✋🚧✋

No weird DNI list, I block on vibes and bs like an adult. Empty blogs, I'm saying this for your own enjoyment of the platform: please add a pfp and/or an intro header because many of us block empty blogs on sight under the impression they're bots.

⚛️✨⚛️✨⚛️

Yes, I am an atheist! No, I am not an anti-theist. No, I am not under the impression that I am smarter than someone just because they believe in a god or gods. (there are scientists who are christians after all not christian scientists that is a totally different thing and is legitimately harmful) I consider humanism a stronger indicator of one's character than whether or not one believes in the supernatural, and I would rather hang out with ten progressive theists than one asshole atheist.

THAT BEING SAID: If you try to proselytize/evangelize to me in favor of your preferred religion, I will not tolerate that for a single moment. Just accept that I do not believe, I've likely already heard every point you'd try to make several times over, and move on with your life without worrying about the state of my supposed soul (which I don't even know if I have).

👤📥👤📥👤

Anon is usually turned on because I like shy people to be able to talk to me in a manner that makes them feel safe. However, anon is a privilege with some personal rules attached, and if someone abuses this privilege then anon will be turned off for a period of time.

Anon is currently: On!

📢💢📢💢📢

I don't reblog call-out posts, as it is all too common for it to be nothing more than personal beef blown out of proportion (or worse, dogpiling on a marginalized individual under the oft-exaggerated or outright falsified belief that they did something bad). Please don't come to my inbox telling me to delete reblogs of or block called-out users, especially on anon or if we've never interacted before. I think I'm cognizant and socially aware enough to be able to make my own judgments of people with my own critical thinking skills.

😵🏷️😵🏷️😵

On occasion, some of my art may feature themes that some people consider to be fetishes, but my usage of those themes is not intended to be fetishistic. I am fine with those who do like those themes for those reasons enjoying my work, just please do not reblog them to solely fetish-themed blogs or make creepy comments on or about that art. I do my best to tag these pieces to help people who are bothered by said themes to avoid seeing them, but if I need further tagging please let me know. (note, however, that I will not be using any fetish-specific acronyms or phrases as tags for aforementioned no-fetish-intent reasons, ie. I will tag "petrification" or "faceless"/"headless" but not "asfr" or "nbm")

🚫🤑🚫💸🚫💸🚫🤑🚫

Any ads placed on this blog by Tumblr are not endorsed by PuppyLuver Studios. Clicking/tapping on any ads is not recommended (but y'all know that).

[anchorarcade]

Secular activist claims at least 30 'closeted atheists' in Congress

http://ryanguillory.com/secular-activist-claims-at-least-30-closeted-atheists-in-congress/

Secular activist claims at least 30 'closeted atheists' in Congress

A prominent advocate for the irreligious says there are at least 30 “closeted” members of Congress who don’t believe in God, and that he hopes a California congressman’s Thursday admission of disbelief will encourage others to come forward.

The advocate, an advisory board member of the Secular Coalition for America, has for more than a decade plied private admissions of atheism from members of Congress with the promise of confidentiality, and said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., is in good company.

Huffman said in an interview published Thursday that “I suppose you could say I don’t believe in God,” though he’s uncomfortable with the certainty the word “atheist” implies.

“People are not ashamed, it’s a political issue soley,” the Secular Coalition member told the Washington Examiner.

“The largest number was 42,” the board member said. “While I have no specific knowledge, I am sure the number is significantly higher than those I know.”

Currently, more than 30 of the 535 voting members of Congress do not believe in God, the advocate said, though he said his work is nonscientific and doesn’t include the newest members. The headcount includes members of both parties, he said.

If lawmakers are reflective of national demographics, there would be about 59 nonbelievers in Congress.

A 2016 Gallup survey and a 2014 Pew survey both found 11 percent of Americans do not believe in God. Perhaps explaining part of the gap between the public and lawmakers, atheism is more common among young people.

Leaders of advocacy groups for people without religion say it’s important for politicians to identify themselves to help break lingering stigma.

Americans tell pollsters that they would be more comfortable voting for a gay or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. And as of 2014, 49 percent of Americans said they would not want a family member to marry an atheist.

“When people came out as gay, it changed the world for the GLBT community,” the advocate said, expressing optimism that Huffman’s admission will “stimulate more people to come out of the closet.”

The secular advocate uses the term nontheist, rather than atheist. There’s an argument that agnostics are by definition atheists, but using nontheist sidesteps the distinction.

Before Huffman’s announcement, only one sitting member of Congress, former Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., publicly said they were an atheist, in 2007. After he left office, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., also acknowledged his atheism.

Some sitting members of Congress do identify their religion as “none” — notably, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. — or unaffiliated.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., calls himself a humanist, but says he’s also Jewish.

Ron Millar of the Freethought Equality Fund PAC said the group would like more members of Congress to identify themselves as not believing in God.

“They just need a little encouragement,” Millar said. He said the fact that Huffman’s admission wasn’t a major news story may spur more disclosures.

“We don’t want to push people to come out,” he said, but “the demographics are behind us and the culture is changing.”

Source link

[awesomefelicitylewis-blog]

Secular activist claims at least 30 'closeted atheists' in Congress

http://ryanguillory.com/secular-activist-claims-at-least-30-closeted-atheists-in-congress/

Secular activist claims at least 30 'closeted atheists' in Congress

A prominent advocate for the irreligious says there are at least 30 “closeted” members of Congress who don’t believe in God, and that he hopes a California congressman’s Thursday admission of disbelief will encourage others to come forward.

The advocate, an advisory board member of the Secular Coalition for America, has for more than a decade plied private admissions of atheism from members of Congress with the promise of confidentiality, and said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., is in good company.

Huffman said in an interview published Thursday that “I suppose you could say I don’t believe in God,” though he’s uncomfortable with the certainty the word “atheist” implies.

“People are not ashamed, it’s a political issue soley,” the Secular Coalition member told the Washington Examiner.

“The largest number was 42,” the board member said. “While I have no specific knowledge, I am sure the number is significantly higher than those I know.”

Currently, more than 30 of the 535 voting members of Congress do not believe in God, the advocate said, though he said his work is nonscientific and doesn’t include the newest members. The headcount includes members of both parties, he said.

If lawmakers are reflective of national demographics, there would be about 59 nonbelievers in Congress.

A 2016 Gallup survey and a 2014 Pew survey both found 11 percent of Americans do not believe in God. Perhaps explaining part of the gap between the public and lawmakers, atheism is more common among young people.

Leaders of advocacy groups for people without religion say it’s important for politicians to identify themselves to help break lingering stigma.

Americans tell pollsters that they would be more comfortable voting for a gay or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. And as of 2014, 49 percent of Americans said they would not want a family member to marry an atheist.

“When people came out as gay, it changed the world for the GLBT community,” the advocate said, expressing optimism that Huffman’s admission will “stimulate more people to come out of the closet.”

The secular advocate uses the term nontheist, rather than atheist. There’s an argument that agnostics are by definition atheists, but using nontheist sidesteps the distinction.

Before Huffman’s announcement, only one sitting member of Congress, former Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., publicly said they were an atheist, in 2007. After he left office, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., also acknowledged his atheism.

Some sitting members of Congress do identify their religion as “none” — notably, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. — or unaffiliated.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., calls himself a humanist, but says he’s also Jewish.

Ron Millar of the Freethought Equality Fund PAC said the group would like more members of Congress to identify themselves as not believing in God.

“They just need a little encouragement,” Millar said. He said the fact that Huffman’s admission wasn’t a major news story may spur more disclosures.

“We don’t want to push people to come out,” he said, but “the demographics are behind us and the culture is changing.”

Source link

[westingwriting]

islam is bad, christianity is good.

My thoughts are: What do you mean by "put a stop to islam?" and why don't you also say it about christianiaty? The way we stop religion, or at least relegate it to grandma's basement, is through education and internet access (more education). the way we reduce radicalism is through stability, education, and opportunity. And teaching people how to fact check and be skeptical. I am WAY more worried about Christian Dominionists in the US than I am about Sharia law, but the way we "get rid of it" is through education, not through force. And when you say "they are not TRUE Christians" that's a fallacy. The No True Scotsman Fallacy. You don't get to decide what a "true" christian is. The Westboro Calvanist assholes have a super strong biblical foundation for being the assholes they are. But you can pick and choose from that book (even without realizing it)to get it to say anything you want, to justify any action. Same as the Koran. The long-term socio-economic situation of the region can shape any irrational holy book to be peaceful or harmful. It's the METHOD that's the problem, not religion X or Y. Blind obedience and authoritarinism are the problem, and these holy books offer the training wheels for it. And yes, most Muslims are peaceful and take the Koran as seriously as Christians take the Bible, which is thankfully not too seriously. We get them to take it less seriously again, through stability, opportunity, healthcare, education, etc. And your "have you seen what's going on in Europe" is basically a "look at the TV" argument. If you just "look at the TV," all airplanes crash...because of reporting bias toward the bad stuff. You need to educate yourself about bias. There is less terrorism in Europe now, than there was in Ireland in the 1970s and 80s. "These people live in the stone age and haven't offered anything to humanity but death and violence for 1400 yrs." that's just ignorant and racist. I'd love to know where you get your news from, because they are radicalizing YOU. I recommend The Young Turks, Secular Talk, The Humanist Report, Last Week Tonight, and especially Matt Dillahunty on Youtube. "15 and 25% of Muslims who actually follow Allah's command to murder." what? at least 15 percent of muslims are murderers? please provide actual data for that, because otherwise that's total bullshit, excised by Hitchens' Razor. "Christians, on the other hand, are taught" WRONG. WRONG WRONG. Again, you don't get to decide what MOST christians are taught. did you poll them? In a less stable, more desperate society, Christianity is capable of the same atrocoties. It all comes back to an irrational ideology and methods of sorting through information. "Love is the foundation upon which Christianity is built." Please watch some Matt Dillahunty and/or The Bible Reloaded to brush up on this. Genocide is what Christianity is built on. The Old Testament is a litany of God telling his chosen tribe to slaughter and enslave everyone and everything. Please watch some of The Atheist Experience, where they go over this stuff in detail. Atheism isn't the cure for Islam or Christianity. Fact checking, education, and skepticism cure ALL irrational ideologies, leading to atheism and HOPEFULLY, secular humanism. Atheism is just saying "I am not convinced of your god claims." that's it. Everything else is something else. Which atheists killed people in the name of atheism? Again, Dillahunty has done debates about this knocking this irrational propaganda out of the water. When talking about atheism, you should be talking about secular humanism if you want to be honest. How many deaths are attributed to secular humanism in the 20th century? Do you think Hitler or Stalin were secular humanists? Honestly? Being an atheist doesn't make people murder. It can't. it's just, "I'm unconvinced of god claims." Whatever else you tack onto that lack of belief, is SOMETHING ELSE. There is nothing inherent in "I am unconvinced of god claims" that leads necessarily to "let's murder people." It seems you mentioned atheism as an argument from consequence fallacy. "Christianity has to be true or else the world is a terrible place to live in." Or "even if Christianity IS bullshit, it keeps people from hurting each other, so it should be promoted." Not sure which side of that you fall onto, but even if it were true (it's not, less religious societies are usually better off than religious ones in just about every area of life from teen pregnancy rates to murder, etc.) even if it were true that christianity "makes us safer and healthier" that says NOTHING about whether it's true. And it's a bad excuse to say "standards were different back then." to defend the Bible. Slavery was wrong back then, too. And so was forcing women to marry their rapists. And stoning gays. Yet these were COMMANDED by God, you know, the omnibenevolent, unchanging God. The Bible hasn't been updated to say "all those 613 commandments before? I was just teasing. They no long apply" as far as I know. You don't get to throw out the majority of your holy book just because it doesn't agree with what Jesus said is the MOST IMPORTANT commandment. There are 613 commandments in the Mosaic law, and Jesus specifically said "I come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and not a jot or tittle of the law shall change until all has come to pass." He said "keep the commandments." he never said "keep the commandments, except for the ones that contradict with the one I'm telling you is most important." Watch some Dillahunty on the Atheist Experience. He has dispelled a lot of confusion about all this stuff. And if you really think you're right, trying calling to into the show on a Sunday he's on to set his dumb atheist ass straight. It's fine if you want to fight against the irrational religion of islam. stability and education are the key to that. But don't pretend Christianity is any different just because it CURRENTLY isn't in the position to do these terrible things in a lot of STABLE modern nations. We should get rid of ALL these irrational ideologies, but through education, stability, etc. Not through force, and not by treating giant sections of the population as "others" just because they wave a different flag while they live peaceful lives. Again, I'm much more worried about Christian Dominionism in the US than in Sharia Law, and about Trump giving the Wahhabi Isis-like govermment of Saudi Arabia 110 billion dollars worth of weapons so they can continue slaughtering yemenese children. Remember that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. but even then, I won't pretend it's the saudi PEOPLE's fault, but their shitty fundamentalist religious government. I'll post some Dillahunty debates to give you a taste. What HE does, is how we destroy these religions. And I'm waiting to hear whether you believe the "atheists slaughtering 100 million people" are secular humanists, Secular humanism is what I advocate for. Hitler and Stalin were irrational authoritarians. Christianity breeds the irrational authoritarian mindset that lets a malicious charlatan like Trump or Pence or Hitler into office, given the correct, desperate situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvPO23_aW3g&list=PLXu58vI2LqvSJVQJmnlAFpyT1EeNSYKeo In other words, all these irrational religions are terrible and destructive, and the cure for all of them is the same. Education.

[ramrodd]

COMMENTARY:

+Burnt Toast

>>>>"So, are you a combat veteran?" No.  Not that I see any relevance to this.<<<<

Thank you for this response., It took courage to make yourself vulnerable in this manner, knowing that I would use it as a weapon against you in our dialogue.

That wasn't my intent. Christianity is all about vulnerability. That is exactly the feature of the ministry of Jesus a Catholic crucifix illustrates.

Devotion to Duty, in the military sense of the word, is all about vulnerability.  

When you are sworn in for jury duty or to provide testimony, you make yourself vulnerable to sanction by the rule of law for misconduct. Faith is not the absence of logic or rational self-interest.  It is a paradox: it is enlightened self-interest arising from confronting an existential threat with vulnerability.

Voluntarily.

Absent divine coercion, With complete consciousness and deliberate intent. It is. as Christopher Hitchens was wont to rant, it is taking no heed for the morrow purposefully.

In many cases, it requires self-sacrifice in a manner which violates Ayn Rand's organizing prinicle, the Virtue of Selfishness (although she would make the case that, in fact, mindful self-sacrifice actually validates the Virtue of Selfishness).

Now, I agree with you completely: an atheist/anti-theist can embrace this enlightened self-interest. Also, as you point out, I am sure that soldier-atheists do it all the time and receive awards for their valor. The fact that this fulfills Jesus' second great law, Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself, and the impulse of John 15:13, I won't construe it as a tacit, albeit existential, embrace of Christian doctrine. It is that Christian doctrine is The One's submission to humanity through the atonement of Jesus and this Second Great Commandment is the most practical application of God's Will.

Jesus was the first Secular Humanist, an irony completely lost on American Evangelical Christians.   The fact the you are or aren't a combat vet is really meaningless to me, generally (obviously, there are elements of that experience available to me which inform my inquiry into the Gospel of Mark and other aspect of my life).

The fact is that admitting your status, one way or another, required an intentional violation of what you regard as rational self-interest. It was not a matter of indifference. It was sufficiently un-important to your personal protocols of dialogue to object to its elevation, however miniscule, to a subject for the public arena. I am willing to endorse your decision as an act of courage, however slight it may seem to you.

Life requires courage. Faith, in the Christian sense, is a continual act of courage beyond the boundaries of what may seem purely rational self-interest and prudent investment. Starting a business is an act of faith based on one's trust in their own abilities and hope for unseen future benefits. Christianity is the hope that one's personal capabilities applied in the present moment within the context of a larger human enterprise will result in both present and future benefits.

The Kingdom of God occurs at the tips of our fingers. As the Shakers say, Heart to God, Hands to Work. I happen to agree with Ayn Rand that altruism is the other side of the coin of Ego from selfishness, but, as a social doctrine (and evolutionary choice) altruism is the better bet, However, Christianity is not a choice for altruism over selfishness, but an expression of the Generosity of Spirit reflected in John 15:13 and the culture of the infantry combat team:

μείζονα ταύτης ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει, ἵνα τις τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ θῇ ὑπὲρ τῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ..

Here is my confession to you. I do know The One in the manner I describe, but I came to know Him by accident. I didn't seek Him out and, to be frank, if this encounter had not happened, I'd probably agree with you, chapter and verse, regarding the improbability of the proposition. The current exercise in Christian apologetics are essentially legal arguments emerging from the doctrine of Solo Scriptura that is completely unconvincing to me. Being verbally nimble with formalistic argument has no more veracity in my mind than your arguments for your sentiments.  

The biggest danger to the body of Christ in America is, in my mind, is Solo Scriptura which, like the overwealming Evangelical vote for Trump, part of the Jesus, Inc, business model that is little different, in kind, from the commercial interests which motivated the Temple priests of Jerusalem who engineered the crucifixion of Jesus. In that regards, you and I are joined in a common cause, but by different means. And, except for this encounter with The One in 1954, I wouldn't be a Christian.

But I did have this encounter and I do know God. I don't know Jesus but I believe on good authority He is exactly who He says He is. But my perspective on His life, as recorded in the Gospels isn't informed  as a Christian Pharisee, but from the anthropological perspective of the pagan Cornelius. I was raised in a community of centurions and the spiritual advisors of my youth were all combat veterans and, in reprospect, I intuitively recognized that they had a similar relationship with The One that I have, a relationship I intuitively find missing in virtually the entire Evangelical pastorage.

That's an unfair generalization, perhaps. but in 1966, when my fraternity roommate got involved with Campus Crusade for Christ and put a great deal of pressure on me to accept Jesus as my personal savior, it took a long conversation with The One to finally make this declaration because I sensed the core fraud of the movement (God eventually convinced me to make Bill happy by, first, saying it was OK to declare, and then sort of reverse engineering Mark 9:37: if I know God, I know the Son, to demonstrate that it wouldn't be a false affirmation. It was important to me to avoid a false affirmation).

Rev. Dr. Francis Wade, Interim Dean of the National Cathedral, is virutally the only civilian preacher whose interpretation of the Gospels reflects my experience growing up in the Army Protestant Chapel. It turns out he was educated at The Citadel. Some of his sermons are on YouTube.

I didn't initiate my inquiry into the Gospel of Mark as part of a crusade to reform Solo Scriptura. My personal meditations on scripture probably verge on heresy in some quarters and are not orthodox once you get past NT Wright's proposition that Paul's epistemology represents a new way of knowing (which is completely sound doctrine regardless of the rising criticism from American Evangelicals who recognize the threat to their business model). Those heresies are not important here, but in 1990, I was teaching Sunday School to high school students and I was concerned that I contain my instruction completely within the boundaries of orthodox Episcopal doctrine. A chance remark by the Superintendent of Sunday School education, Rev, Caroline Pyle, made me begin to review the Gospels beyond my cursory survey of the literature of the Bible from college.

I began to work my way through William Barclay's commentaries and, in reading his introduction to the Gospel of Mark, I had an epiphany that Cornelius was the author of Mark.  

And it's been a hobby ever since. It has never been a crusade, but, as I say, Carrier's subordination of the literature of the Bible to his post-Hegelian historical deconstruction offends me and here we are, today. The value to me of this particular forum is that the objections raised have led me, in partnership with the Holy Spirit, to the probable scenario for the creation of Mark.

From the beginning of this inquiry until quite recently, I assumed Mark was a covert publication but, as my understanding of the larger Roman context deepened (thanks in no small measure to the series of lectures by Bruce Gore on the historical context of the Bible, as well as even Carrier's lectures), it has become apparent that Mark is a product of the Roman military establishment in response to the singular nature of the Resurrection and the events leading up to and resulting from its occasion.

In the final analysis, Christianity is a Roman invention, with the Gospel of Matthew the outlier composed specifically to sabotage (through "Judaizers") the wholesale proliferation of the Gospels beyond the boundaries of Jewish "kosher" doctrine. I've never been a fan of Paul's, but, in terms of the selling of Jesus, he recognized the huge marketing opportunity of the generally god-sensitive Roman empire and which the abrogation of all things Kosher in Acts 10 made possible.

But a review of that inquiry is not the purpose of this commentary, but an expression of sincere gratitude for revealing publically your personal resume contrary to your instincts to withhold the information. It was an act of faith and good will,

Thank you.

[peterboumgarden]

Orthodox Pluralist or Benedict Option?

Writing in GQ a number of years back, John Jeremiah Sullivan penned one of my favorite essays on the Christian subculture. Set at the CrossOver Festival in the Lake of the Ozarks, Sullivan’s piece focused on idiosyncrasies in the Christian music scene. The essay is brilliantly constructed from wellhead to burner tip, but I want to focus on a specific part in the middle. This is where Sullivan provides his assessment of the music quality:

The fact that I didn't think I heard a single interesting bar of music from the forty or so acts I caught or overheard at Creation shouldn't be read as a knock on the acts themselves, much less as contempt for the underlying notion of Christians playing rock. These were not Christian bands, you see; these were Christianrock bands. The key to digging this scene lies in that one syllable distinction. Christian rock is a genre that exists to edify and make money off of evangelical Christians. It's message music for listeners who know the message cold, and, what's more, it operates under a perceived responsibility—one the artists embrace—to "reach people." As such, it rewards both obviousness and maximum palatability (the artists would say clarity), which in turn means parasitism. Remember those perfume dispensers they used to have in pharmacies—"If you like Drakkar Noir, you'll love Sexy Musk" Well, Christian rock works like that. Every successful crappy secular group has its Christian offbrand, and that's proper, because culturally speaking, it's supposed to serve as a standing for, not an alternative to or an improvement on, those very groups. In this it succeeds wonderfully. If you think it profoundly sucks, that's because your priorities are not its priorities;

Sullivan’s piece came to mind this last week as I read a number of writers at the New York Times engage with the argument of Rod Dreher’s newest book, The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation.  At its core, Dreher’s thesis is that if Christians in the West see a deep and destructive misalignment of their worldview with contemporary culture (and they should!), they ought to explore forms of resistance and creative communities set apart from these forces.

Where Dreher sees potential, I fear Christianrock.

But let’s hear him out. What might these forms of community look like, and when does ‘resistance’ make sense? In an astute analysis of the book at Comment, philosopher Jamie Smith quotes the following from Benedict:

In a chapter on employment and work, Dreher takes the commitment to stability in the Benedictine Rule and turns it into a counsel of despair: "We may not (yet) be at the point where Christians are forbidden to buy and sell in general without state approval, but we are on the brink of entire areas of commercial and professional life being off-limits to believers whose consciences will not allow them to burn incense to the gods of our age." These professions, by the way, turn out to be "florists, bakers, and photographers" as well as public school teachers and university professors.

Like Jamie, though perhaps for different reasons, I can’t help but read Dreher and start to feel a bit uncomfortable. At the Times, David Brooks agrees and frames an alternative:  

The right response to the moment is not the Benedict Option, it is Orthodox Pluralism. It is to surrender to some orthodoxy that will overthrow the superficial obsessions of the self and put one’s life in contact with a transcendent ideal. But it is also to reject the notion that that ideal can be easily translated into a pure, homogenized path. It is, on the contrary, to throw oneself more deeply into friendship with complexity, with different believers and atheists, liberals and conservatives, the dissimilar and unalike.

My own wrestling with the tension between a religious worldview and modern culture is deeply personal. I am the son of a midwestern Presbyterian pastor. Much of my youth was spent in the evangelical subculture -- shifting between forms of church and para-church ministry. For college, I went to a school with a conservative bent to theology, though one rooted in a deep belief in the intellectual power of the Christian tradition. Many of my professors believed that their reformed theology implied particular policies in the public square. It is a perspective that has exposed one of its graduates, Betsy Devos, to critique over the last few months. In graduate school at Washington University in St. Louis, my intellectual life continued to evolve. I grew in a desire to pull from my tradition while simultaneously setting it into dialogue with other ways of thinking and seeing the world-- frameworks from empirical social science, evolutionary psychology and biology, and cultural artifacts. And in the “friendship with complexity,” I found companionship. 

The other day, my friend Robert sent me a dialogue between two famed philosophers: Richard Rorty and Nick Wolterstorff. Rorty is the late philosophical pragmatist from Stanford and Wolterstorff a retired reformed epistemologist who spent much of his career at Yale. Taking aim at Rorty’s view that religion is an unhelpful conversation stopper, Wolterstorff reframes an alternative model around the life of Martin Luther King Jr. In King, Wolterstorff finds a man whose viewpoints are deeply informed by faith, but he remains just as conversant across traditions as he is within. In other words, you can’t remove the Christian from King without losing the foundation of his argument; but, nor do you have to leave your alternative assumptions at the door to engage with its essence.

King’s vision is one that I find compelling.

But to see the potential pitfalls of linking worldview to public response, it is helpful to take a step back. Put simply, everyone has a normative view of the world-- an intuitive sense of what is good, true, real, and beautiful. These views are a mix of our cognitive hard wiring towards specific moral responses, as can be seen in the work of Jon Haidt. They are also formed by the cultures we sit within. Some people’s views are shaped within a particular religious community, but perspectives can come from political frameworks like neoliberalism or philosophies like secular humanism. It could even be the “American Sublime” preferred by Rorty. In the end, the key point is that these views rest upon a set of metaphysical assumptions that are not easily amenable to rational argument. As Wolterstorff concludes in step with Rorty, “I view our human condition as such that we must expect the endurance of such fundamental disagreements.”

When it comes to the public square, these “private” views often hold implications for how a society should be ordered. They are endowed with certain value priorities which bear upon its citizens. They imply a set of policies to drive the world toward those ends. Where it becomes interesting is when these views-- whether foundation, or implication-- start to diverge. Two people look at the sexual revolution-- one sees an empowerment of women, another sees the undermining of important societal structures. So, where do these points of tension bubble up?

PROBLEM 1: DIFFERENT START- SHARED CONCLUSION: Let’s say I have a worldview that leads me to understand a specific kind of behavior as morally right. Maybe this is my view of the nuclear family, an understanding of how we should design prisons, or a perspective on privatization of schools and tax breaks for religious institutions. And then I meet you. You start from a very different beginning, but we end up with the same conclusion.  While many might see this as a win, if my worldview is exclusivist, I might start to wonder whether I need to hold my starting perspective at all. Commence existential crisis. 

PROBLEM 2: SAME START: DIFFERENT CONCLUSION: Another point of tension is when two people from a shared worldview reach drastically different views. You can see this in the fragmenting of religious institutions over issues of LGBTQ rights and gay marriage. You and I being in the same tradition, but end up concluding that very different behaviors are justified. Unlike the first problem where I wonder if my foundation is relevant, this crisis is about whether a particular tradition holds enough ambiguity to bear disparate conclusions.

PROBLEM 3: FOUNDATION POLLUTION / DILUTION / SUPPRESSION: The core of the third problem is how to maintain “orthodoxy” in the midst of pluralism-- to borrow from Brook’s language. In this case, I might worry that my worldview will be polluted, diluted, or suppressed by dancing amidst competing perspectives. Sure your view of relationships is shaped by specific sacred texts, but might there a little HBO mixed in there as well?  Worries about “losing the culture war” seem to rest squarely within problem 3. 

PROBLEM 4: FUTURE CONCLUSIONS LOST: Finally, to the extent that unique perspectives on future problems only emerge out of specific worldviews, the third worry is that in losing a distinct tradition we might negate creative responses to future issues. In other words, maybe we need a distinctly Christian, Muslim, Neoliberal, or Secular Humanist response to the singularity. Something might be lost if we don’t have these views weigh in on AI, the driverless car, and healthcare reform. If these views are polluted, then their response might be as well.

Looking over this landscape, there are a number of reasons why I stand more with Brooks than Dreher, aligned more fully with Wolterstorff than Rorty. On the first point, I don’t think a particular community has to hold the sole intellectual foundation for a specific policy for it to be justified. I am a pragmatist in this way. If we start on different paths but end up together, we should be able to celebrate. Specific to the second worry that our traditions will fragment into multiple conclusions, I think this inevitable divergence should give us pause about what we can know with certainty regarding metaphysics. This is not a move into nihilism, but rather a call to engage with big issues with loosened grips on our perspective and an openness to dialogue. And as for the third point, while I can see why we might fear the dilution of our traditions, I would rather aim for MLK cross-pollination than be set apart without an ability to dialogue.

Just the other week, Andrew Sullivan wrote an astute piece at New York Magazine assessing the reaction of Middlebury students to Charles Murray’s impending visit. As Sullivan’s work highlights, it is not only religions that struggle with this kind of open conversation. Speaking of growing intolerance within the academic “intersectionality” movement, Sullivan writes:

It is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a “smelly little orthodoxy,” and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., “check your privilege,” and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required.

...

It operates as a religion in one other critical dimension: If you happen to see the world in a different way, if you’re a liberal or libertarian or even, gasp, a conservative, if you believe that a university is a place where any idea, however loathsome, can be debated and refuted, you are not just wrong, you are immoral. If you think that arguments and ideas can have a life independent of “white supremacy,” you are complicit in evil. And you are not just complicit, your heresy is a direct threat to others, and therefore needs to be extinguished. You can’t reason with heresy. You have to ban it. It will contaminate others’ souls, and wound them irreparably.

So we are left with a dilemma. We need our unique perspectives, but we also benefit when they are in real dialogue with others. In contrast to Rorty’s view, I believe our traditions can give us unique insights into reality that might creatively color (versus color-over) what we are able to see. Like a language system whose particular words and grammatical structures enable us to pick up on the unique features of the world around us, so too worldviews enable us to see things that are missed with views that start with different aims. Here is Wolterstorff again, on this very point:

Yes indeed, religion is sometimes a menace to the freedoms of a liberal society. But the full story of how we won the freedoms we presently enjoy would give prominent place to the role of religion in the struggle; the good that religion does is not confined to providing, in Rorty's words, comfort "to those in need or in despair." Has the prominent role of religion in the American civil rights movements already been forgotten? Has its prominent role in the revolutions in South Africa, Poland, Romania, and East Germany already passed into amnesia? Then too, a full and fair narrative would have to give prominent attention to the great murderous secularisms of the twentieth century: Nazism, Communism, nationalism. The truth is that pretty much anything that human beings care deeply about can be a menace to freedom - including, ironically, caring deeply about freedom.

This is not to suggest that these views would not have come about otherwise. It is, however, to highlight that the starting points for these policies and perspectives came from particular worldviews. In this way, I think “intersectionality” should exist just as much as Judaism, Liberal Protestantism, Conservative Evangelicalism, and the American Sublime. But I will hold much stronger to that perspective is I think the views that come out of such starting points are both creative and open to dialogue. You can’t reason with heresy, Sullivan reminds us. Going back to Dreher, I wonder if in being set apart, the list of what counts as heretical grow longer and longer?

And still, I can’t shake my fear of the diminished quality from a world set apart. How close is the Benedict Option to John Jeremiah Sullivan’s experience at the CrossOver Festival? Here, Smith puts it well:

When Dreher encourages "bold" and "entrepreneurial" responses to these realities, the examples sound like a replay of subcultural production—little cottage industries that function as what James Davison Hunter has described as "parallel institutions"—coupled with the tribal admonishment to "buy Christian" (which is why in the United States you see little icthuses on business listings in the Yellow Pages—well, when we used to have Yellow Pages!). Dreher seems to think these are suggestions that are fresh and forward-looking, but a lot of us have already seen this movie. And we know how it ends.

Set apart to create a unique music footprint, an industry creates Christianrock. This should give us all pause.

Maybe in serving only the needs of a particular segment we end up with buttoned-up conclusions, a shift away from dialogue, and a resulting diminishment of quality. Christianrock does not need to be quality, Sullivan argues, in large part because that is not the primary thing the audience is looking for. They are looking for safe. They are looking for good enough. Sullivan concludes with the dagger: “So it's possible—and indeed seems likely—that Christian rock is a musical genre, the only one I can think of, that has excellence proofed itself.”

While we need unique communities and particular traditions to see the world with fresh eyes, we need to be equally concerned about the quality of their vision. We need to pay attention to patterns that make us excellent-proof. If the Benedict Option moves a specific tradition in the direction of a creative and helpful distinctiveness, then it should be celebrated. If it doesn’t, it runs the risk of preaching to a choir that is less and less engaged with any other comparative voice. In the end, I am less optimistic than Dreher that the positive vision will come to be.  For that reason, keep me in the Orthodox Pluralist camp. Let me build “friendship with complexity,” and learn to deal with the risk.