Thanks again Ted Haggard

One of the biggest pro-being-neutral-toward-religion arguments is "what's the harm?" Why not let people have their little fantasies? Why not let people believe in unicorns? For some reason it's never been enough to point out the whole, Crusades, Suicide Bombers, 9/11 and oh yeah Hitler believed that "Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord (an Aryan) commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." So another major problem I have with religion is that it breeds hypocrisy and dishonesty. The examples of this are omnipresent, but are often too "minor" or too amorphous to really be convincing, so thank you Ted Haggard for once again helping me out during your recent interview with Oprah, and thank you commenter "ibfreak4jc" on Oprah's website for illustrating my point perfectly:

"Yup, there are Christians who have totally blown it. Ted did some pretty dispicable things. I wish he would have saught help or counsel before he did what he did. The funny thing is, its people that really mess up bad that end up making the strongest Christians. Once you realize your own hopelessness, its pretty easy to trade it for Christ's holiness. Some of the biggest hypocrites in the world are in Christian churches--the best place for us at times. If you were really sick, wouldn;t you too go to a hospital?"

"Some of the biggest hypocrites in the world are in Christian churches." What's truly hilarious is that I can't really find any fault with this comment. That is, as long as you apply a somewhat abnormal meaning to the term "strongest Christians." If by that we mean most faithful Christians, I can't disagree. I do think religions, and Christianity in particular, are comforting to the liars, cheats, thieves, hypocrites and liars among us. Personally I have to live with every lie I tell and the negative impact that has on my reputation; but what if I couldn't handle that kind of pressure, the pressure of knowing that when i do something wrong, it wasn't the devil making me do it? Or what if the lying and thieving was just too appealing to me? Well there's a beautiful solution... Church! Ted Haggard clearly demonstrates that a Christian can lie to MILLIONS, lie to himself and his wife, CHEAT on his wife, do METH, and still be forgiven, and most absurdly believed. What criminal could resist?!

In his interview (which can be seen below), he admits he wanted to know "what am I, am I gay, am I straight, am I Bi?" But I thought that homosexuals were insane? That they choose to be gay. Now that Haggard's dirty secret is out he's singing quite a different tune. It's not something he chose. He doesn't seem to think he's crazy. Once it's their ass on the flame things look a little different don't they? The fact is, if not for his religion, Haggard would be a practicing homosexual or bisexual, he wouldn't have lied to his wife and his massive congregation and he might not have resorted to doing meth with a gay hooker. Instead he was "forced" to lie and decieve, make himself a hypocrite, and most importantly he promoted a lie that became bigger than just him. People aren't going to stop believing in God just because Haggard has been proven to be a liar and a hypocrite. These people pretend to be moral sages and expect us retain faith in their gospel even though they are repeatedly proven to be immoral, and what's truly sad is that their followers do keep the faith, at least in the system as a whole. Personally, if evolutionary biologists repeatedly were exposed for falsifying data, I would seriously question evolution, as well as the profession. But it doesn't matter how many priests are pedophiles (not to mention evangelists (Tony Alamo) and Mormons), or how many preachers steal from their own congregations (Randall W. Harding, Jim Bakker, Kent Hovind, Rev. Henry J. Lyons, Malcolm Edwards-Sayer, Neulan Midkiff, just from a quick google search), we're still supposed to view them as the bastions of moral truth.

Atheist, Agnostic, Non-religious

I recently went to a meeting of the New York City Atheists during which two points were raised which I found interesting. Actually there were far more than that, but these two are the ones I want to discuss now.

The first, someone mentioned that they, "don't really consider themselves an atheist. [They're] more spiritual," or something like that, maybe they used the term agnostic. This is a point many non-religious people cover relatively early in their development, however, it never ceases to amaze me how many do not, so for them I'd like to briefly address the definition of "Atheist." The merriam-webster definition is, "one who believes that there is no deity." People seem to ignore how broad a definition this really is. Do you believe that Jesus is watching over you? Do you think Vishnu or Allah or anyone is? If the answer is no then you are an atheist. Do you think that there may be some inexplicable force at work out in the universe? Atheist! An inexplicable force is not a deity, and even if you admit the possibility that it might be a deity, if you don't act as if a deity is watching over you, then clearly you don't really believe that there is one. Some people describe the difference between atheism and agnosticism as strong versus weak atheism, which is certainly accurate, but the point is still the same: in the end, agnosticism is a kind of atheism.

What people really mean when they say they don't consider themselves an atheist, is that they don't consider themselves to be the kind of person religious people are referring to when they use the word "atheist." This leads to the second point that came to mind at the meeting, "is it wise to refer to ourselves as atheists?" If it is, then why have I chosen the term "non-religious?" A man in his 30s who had a newbie aura about him suggested that we avoid using the term Atheist, probably because of its negative connotation. I found it very interesting that the man heading the meeting pointed out that at every meeting they've had someone new had made that assertion. People shouldn't feel stupid about this, I too had the same thought at one point-it's almost as if it's a developmental stage of being an atheist.

First, a group is never going to develop if it allows its decisions to be made by other groups. If we're really going to listen to their opinions about us, then we should just disband now and start worshipping Christ or some other deity, because I'm pretty sure that's their end-game. Anyway, in the end, changing our name won't fool anyone, but it will only inform them that we are weak, and frankly conniving. In addition, a negative connotation alone is not lethal to the use of a term. In fact, a negative connotation associated with group-related terminology can be beneficial to the group as a whole. The gay rights movement did this twice with the word "gay" and the word "queer." African-americans took a similar approach to the n-word. The epithet gives the group something to tackle together. By deciding to embrace the word, and convert its meaning through widespread usage by the group itself, the group become a more cohesive unit and destroys a powerful tool against it.

What I'm saying is merely that the term "Atheist" isn't a movement killer. In fact, I don't see a future for non-religious people in which the word is absent. So why have I gone with the term "non-religious." Because another key to progressing a movement is realism, and there are a large number of people who do not consider themselves to be atheists, probably with very good reasons, but still have far more in common with atheists than religious people. Just because I believe that they might be accurately descibed as atheists doesn't mean that we shouldn't openly accept them as compatriots, and to that end I think that "non-relgious" is the biggest catch-all. The problem with the existence of so many different non-religious groups is that they are competiting with one another, when what they really need to be doing is working together. So at the end of the day, I care more about making sure that non-religious people are unified and pursuing their common interests together, than I am about semantics.