I sense that you disapprove of atheists. Perhaps you disapprove of other
non-religious as well. Would you share your thoughts?
I don't disapprove of atheistic or agnostic believers. People are free to believe what they want to. Maybe they're right, maybe I'm right. We'll find out eventually. In the meantime, I do not see it as my responsibility to save their souls from unbelief, nor theirs to save mine from belief.
What I DO object to are people of EITHER side denigrating the beliefs of those who don't agree with their beliefs. I object to fundamentalists trying to convert me to their way of life and telling me I'm damned if I don' t agree with them. I also object to people (such as SR) denigrating believers because he hasn't yet had the same personal experience of a relationship with God that others have had. It's the one area where I think he is not only wrong, but inconsiderate -- usually I find his posts both insightful and considerate, but in this area he has blinders on that narrow his view every bit as much as those of the most Bible thumping fundamentalists. It gets to the point where I really think it's defensive; whistling past the graveyard.
You, fortunately, are not that way, which is one of the many reasons I enjoy posting with you, even though there are one or two areas on which we don't completely agree. <!>
I also object to two characterists of certain (not by any means all) athiests. First is denial of history; basic denial that we were founded as a Christian nation, and basic denial that that has had a lot to do with shaping the nature of our society, both for good and for bad. (Though usually they're happy to acknowledge the bad.) Second is to try to force religion out of public life, and make public life atheist. The whole origin, intent, purpose, etc. of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment are too complex to get into here, but it's clear that they were never meant to be used in the way they are used today.
I am happy to let atheists and agnostics (and the non-religious or whatever other term you wish to use) believe and practice what they want, as long as they let me believe and practice what I want.
However, let me add that, of course, this does not affect the reality that moral-ethical-religious beliefs (or the lack thereof) are, as I have said in earlier posts, the basis of virtually all substantive law. I do not, therefore, believe that, for example, imposing by law opposition to abortion on moral-ethical-religious grounds is improper any more than imposing by law opposition to murder on ethical-moral-religous grounds is improper. It is virtually impossible (I would say impossible, but there may be one or two out there) to name any substantive law which does not have the effect of imposing one moral-ethical-religious belief on others who do not share that belief. The very process of a society creating law is the process of imposing one set of beliefs on other people who do not share those beliefs. So in the arena of government, it is not only right but proper that the development of law be informed by the moral-ethical-religious beliefs of the citizenry. |
