All week I have been hearing about the coming schism in the Anglican Church. Apparently the Bishops have papered over the cracks for now but the Evangelicals are refusing to share communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury over the British and American churches’ liberal attitudes on homosexuality. So it looks like the Anglican Church will soon split into the Anglican Peoples’ Church and the Peoples’ Church of Anglia. Very Life of Brian.
Now what has that to do with the headline? Not much actually but while the Anglicans who have been busy telling us they are the third largest Christian community in the world are totally obsessed with what members of sexual minorities get up to the the privacy of their homes, across the pond big time blogger Amanda Marcotte of Pandangon has been getting a lot of grief about some disparaging remarks she made concerning Roman Catholic attitudes to abortion and contraception. Let's be realistic, its almost impossible to ridicule Roman Catholic attityudes on contraception.
In typical American style the argument soon came down to whether anybody has the right to criticise a faith they are not attached to. Christians do not apply this restriction to themselves of course - being adherents of “the one true God” they assign themselves the right to slag off all non Christian faiths without attempting to gain the least understanding of what those faiths are about.
Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians are very quick to say that criticism of their faith is hurtful and “blasphemous” yet they see nothing wrong in Evangelical Christians claiming that all non Christians are incapable of behaving morally as morality can only come from God, or that pagans are all Satanists and paedophiles. Faced with this kind of irrational criticism from adherents of religious faiths I'd say we have a duty to ridicule their beliefs.
When I keep coming across the hate fuelled idiocy of Fundamentalist Christians Amanda’s allegedly offensive remarks are the epitome of restraint and reason.
The real problems at Pandangon arise from the fact that Amanda told the truth and Christians (even the reasonable ones - sorry Jenni and Roz, ) just cannot and have never been able to handle the truth. Which is why they turn a blind eye to the facts that a quarter of the human beings in the world do not get adequate food, around a fifth do not have access to clean drinking water, the problems of overpopulation can only be solved by contraception and sex education, we need massive aid programs to put right the harmful effects of western exploitation of the third world, Africa needs medicines not missionaries to control the plagues of HIV and malaria and South America and Asia need socialism not sanctimony to give everybody the chance of a decent life.
In view of all that, yes it must be right to ridicule religious faith, if only to help believers keep some kind of grip on reality. God did not create the world in seven days, Moses did not part the Red Sea, Jesus' Mum was not a virgin. To believe that stuff is delusional. Once we allow the whining of clergy and lay people to place an irrational and delusional belief system beyond criticism then we have lost civilisation.
Religionists forget there are many other ways of having faith, mostly equally misplaced; the guy who bets his wage of a fifty to one outsider in the two-thirty at Cheltenham has an insane faith, a pilot has faith in the technology that will fly him and his passengers safely to their destination - flight technology is well proven but the more you know about how a plane stays in the air the bigger act of faith it takes to get on board, the soldier has faith in his comrades that by working as a team they will maximise their chance of survival, I have faith that the sun will rise and life will go on tomorrow, otherwise I would not bother writing this blog.
-
- http://www.doctor-dark.co.uk
- 2007-02-18 @ 18:49:59
I too believe that there is no right to be taken seriously. There are thousands of religions, and they are all wrong. Only the absence of these delusions gives one a right to be listened to.
-
- 2007-02-19 @ 17:53:12
I've always said I have no objection to people's religious beliefs so long as they do not involve harming others.
Its when people start insisting its true they must understand they have invited criticism and they must accept it or learn to build a rational argument to prove their point.-
- http://www.doctor-dark.co.uk
- 2007-02-19 @ 18:01:53
But they claim rational arguments are not needed because they have faith, so it must be true because they didn't need rational argument....
-
- 2007-02-19 @ 10:52:20
I take issue with your assertion that all Christians, even the reasonable ones, turn a blind eye to those terrible facts about the world. Campaigns such as Jubilee 2000 and Make Poverty History originated from Christians, and those Christians accepted the involvement of non-Christians in those movements for the benefit of humanity. There are many charitable organisations of all faiths which aim to help people regardless of their faith.
God bless xx-
- 2007-02-19 @ 17:49:22
Yeah but Jenni - being provocative and controversial is my job. And Amanda did get some absolutely obscene abuse from American "Christians".
It comes down again to the question of who you are prepared to share your umbrella with, the people who are distributing food, medication and condoms in Africa or the ones who are telling uneducated people they will be punished by God if they use condoms?
So what does "Christian" mean in the modern world? Someone who wants to feed and heal the world or someone who wants to bomb Iran and "make the motherfuckers accept Jesus," as one of the comments on Amanda's blog put it? I know where you stand on that but the guy who made the comment would say that you are not a real Christian? I know you are genuine but who would someone who doesn't know you believe? Well an Iraniasn jihadist might ignore you and say the other guy represents Christianity so there must be war.
I think referring to oneself as "A Christian" is a cop out as there is no consistent central philosophy beyond "be nice to each other" which is exactly what Plato and Buddha and Zalmoxis (who? got you there didn't I?) and Zoroaster were saying 600 years earlier.
Think about it...-
- 2007-02-20 @ 15:08:09
Yeah, you got me, I don't know who "Zalmoxis" is
Don't really know who Zoroaster is either, but I've heard of him.
For me, Christianity is the easiest and clearest path to God. We are taught that we are saved "by grace, through faith" - ie by our faith in God's Son who was sent to die for us, because He WANTS to save us. Now as you know, I don't necessarily believe that this means you have to know Jesus by name, and the Bible says there will be sheep from other flocks - and yes, we are told that when we are nice to each other, we are being nice to Jesus.
However, knowing that we are saved "by grace, through faith", stops us panicking when we fail to be as nice to each other as we know we should. This tells me that God is love, wants to help me live a good life, but won't abandon me if I don't. That for me is the uniqueness of Christianity, and why I choose to call myself Christian rather than anything else.
As for the umbrella thing, I would consider myself united with every Christian in that we all claim grace through faith in Jesus Christ as our inheritance: however, I would question the actions of people like those you just mentioned. The Bible says that people's work "will be burnt up" if they do not follow God's will for their lives, but that "he himself will be saved, as if he had escaped through the fire". Because God wants to save everyone, He is looking for a reason TO save people - because they believe in His Son, or because they seek to serve other people. It's really hard to say that God wants to save people who want to bomb other countries etc etc, but when I look at some of the things I've done and realise God wants to save me in spite of that, I realise how wonderful He is.
Hope this helps.
God bless xx-
- 2007-02-20 @ 17:08:29
Aw Jenni, that was painful for me to read.
Have you shot youself in the foot so many times you are just numb to it now.
The idead of Jesaus being the Son of God was not dreamed up untilseveral decades after Christianity had been adopted and adapted (but noot improved) by Emperor Constantine. For the first three centuries Chistians did not think of Jesus as anytrhing other than a teacher and philosopher. The Roman Emperor was "Pontifex Maximus" of the Sol Invicta cult and regarded ceremonially as the earthly embodiment of the god Saturn. This belief had to be incorporated into the new "official faith" to appease the pagans of whom there were still many. December 25th was adopted as Christ's birthday to further identify the new sun god with Mithras, god of the Bull cult, the most popular religion in the legions, whose birthday was December 25th. You will be familiar with Mithras, he was represented as a Golden calf.
I know it sounds patronising but I feel sorry for Christians. Why do you devote so much of your lives to a cult that is so afraid of the truth. You could still be Christians if you come to terms with history, after all Christians are just Druids with delusions.
Zoroaster was the founding prophet (circa 600BC) of the religion named after him which is acknowledged as the first monotheistic religion although Brahminism, the highest form of Hinduism, is truly monotheistic as it holds that all the lesser gods (and all other things in the Universe are simply manifestations of Brahma (the oneness.)
Zalmoxis was the philosopher of the Dacian faith. He created most of the concepts we now think of as Chistian. You have never heard of the Dacians? Well that is because they were such a powerful and technologically advanced empire they threatened Rome. And so the Romans carried out a comprehensive genocide. The evidence of them was always there, we just did not recognise it until about a hundred years ago.
Isn't real history fascinating compared the the anodyne Chistian version.
Jenni, like I said you can still be Christians but young people like you should be dissociating your church from the idiocies of the past.
love
Ian-
- 2007-02-27 @ 14:19:56
I don't think any of this can possibly be as cut and dried as you make it sound. There are plenty of Christian theologians and historians who aren't afraid of the truth, so presumably there is debate about what "real" history is. To me, the New Testament account of God and what He did for us just makes so much more sense than anything else I've read or heard about any other idea of God - the Christian God wants to be known so much, that He found us rather than waiting for us to find him. That's what a God of love would do. Psychologists have analysed the Gospels and concluded that Jesus was the sanest man in history. A journalist who sought to disprove the Gospels became a Christian. A PhD student who sought to disprove the Resurrection concluded that the only possibility was that Jesus had had an identical twin brother who appeared after his death. That last person seems more insane and deluded than most Christians.
What do you think?
God bless xx
God bless xx-
- 2007-02-27 @ 16:59:29
I think therefore I am...
...going to mail. I don't want to do too much in depth religious discussion in a public forum, it attracts the wrong sort of people.-
- 2007-02-27 @ 19:18:17
Message received, understood and replied to

God bless xx
Leave a comment
Hide subcomments