Michael Gerson is a militant "Christian." P.Z. Meyers is a militant Atheist. As Mark Kleiman points out "Meyers furiously denounces as false the sort of childish religion that Gerson exemplifies but that thoughtful worshippers of every persuasion have always despised."
So Mark goes on to explain why the very debate - on both sides - is an example of ignorance, intolerance. It is based largely on taking what is actually metaphorical and trying to pretend that it is literal.
After reading Mark's excellent article, Consider what Pope Benedict had to say recently and ask yourself - where is the actually spirituality in that? All he is doing is setting guidelines for his own hierarchical authority over an organization. That's power politics, not religion.
I realized a number of years ago that it took as much blind "faith," dogmatism and refusal to inquire into the spiritual unknown to be an evangelical Atheist as it does to be a fundamentalist or evangelical religious person. On the part of the Evangelists and fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever) it takes the form of trying to force or bribe others to accept their point of view and setting up tests of behavior generally as demonstrated by public Religious observations, quoting of the unquestionable sacred texts provided my some wise men, etc. Most Atheists I have known have adopted Atheism as a defense against such fundamentalist forcible or repeated intrusions into their religious inquiry.
My conclusion has been that the U.S. Constitution has it right. There is no place for organized religion anywhere near the levers of political power or especially near the authority to tax or to use tax money.
No comments:
Post a Comment