The Christians Making Atheists

[Sunstone]

Just ask around. People outside the Church will tell you: love is no longer our calling card. It is now condemnation, bigotry, judgment and hypocrisy. In fact, the Christianity prevalent in so much of America right now isn’t just failing to draw others to Christ, it is actively repelling them from him. By operating in a way that is in full opposition to the life and ministry of Jesus—it is understandably producing people fully opposed to the faith that bears his name.

In record numbers, the Conservative American Church is consistently and surely making Atheists—or at the very least it is making former Christians; people who no longer consider organized religion an option because the Jesus they recognize is absent. With its sky-is-falling hand-wringing, its political bed-making, and its constant venom toward diversity, it is giving people no alternative but to conclude, that based on the evidence of people professing to be Godly—that God is of little use. In fact, this God may be toxic.

And that’s the irony of it all; that the very Evangelicals who’ve spent that last 50 years in this country demonizing those who reject Jesus—are the single most compelling reason for them to do so. They are giving people who suspect that all Christians are self-righteous, hateful hypocrites, all the evidence they need. The Church is confirming the outside world’s most dire suspicions about itself.

With every persecution of the LGBTQ community, with every unprovoked attack on Muslims, with every planet-wrecking decision, with every regressive civil rights move—the flight from Christianity continues.

[Source: "The Christians Making Atheists"]

I agree with the author that a prominent segment of Christianity in America (i.e. the more radical, fundamentalist sort of Evangelicalism) is rapidly alienating people from the Christian religion. I disagree with his notion that the people so alienated are for the most part becoming atheists. I think instead they are by and large becoming unchurched, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so forth.

Comments? Observations? Questions? Unhinged, mouth-frothing rants?

 

[Spiderman]

You don't have to be a Christian to be a spiritual theist.

Most theists are not Christian... most Christians would not consider me Christian, because I pray to the spirits of the deceased, and I practice things like Shintoism, Shamanism, Buddhism, and find inspiration from Hinduism.

Yes, you are correct, Christians do create atheists... I find that there is much in the Bible, that can become toxic, if a person is using the Bible as the sole ruler of their faith...

I think there is some truth in the Bible, and some very good verses in the Bible, like love your enemies, forgive all people, feed the hungry, give shelter to the needy, don't judge, be humble Etc

I think the Bible is a mix of Truth and error...

I do read it every day, but I'm not very fond of it.

 

[Vouthon]

I'm with you and the author so far as conservative Christianity in America is concerned, although regrettably its not "just" Evangelicals - some lay-persons among their Catholic neighbours, affiliated with the Tea Party movement and Trump, habitually ignore the hierarchy of their church and Pope Francis whenever a social justice issue arises.

So, its a problem with conservative Christianity in general in the U.S., with the Evangelicals and Southern Baptists merely being the most prominent examples of this phenomenon. The difference here is that the Evangelical laity largely take the lead from their pastors, so there is an actual theological culture at the heart of the problem, in the seminaries. For the Catholic side of this coin, there isn't a theological issue among priests or bishops, overall (pardoning the rare exception) but rather it is more grassroots alone. Just earlier this year:


Pope Francis says helping poor people and immigrants is just as important as fighting abortion

Pope Francis has argued caring for migrants and the poor is as holy as taking a stand against abortion.

The pontiff, who has clashed with US president Donald Trump on immigration and has made defence of migrants a critical part of his papacy, urged followers to battle for the rights of the poor as powerfully as they would resist abortion.

His 100-page document – an apostolic exhortation titled “Gaudete et Exsultate,” or “Rejoice and Be Glad” – issued a rebuke to Catholic anti-abortion activists who concentrate so closely on the issue of abortion that it eclipses other questions.

"The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist,” the religious leader wrote in an apostolic exhortation on the subject of holiness revealed by the Vatican on Monday morning.

“Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned.”

The pontiff's decision to draw moral parity between the two issues is linked to the fact his vision of holiness explicitly draws attention to the plight of migrants.

“We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue,” he said. “Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the ‘grave’ bioethical questions.”
​

Basically, the more Machiavellian amongst them - that is to say, the politicians who wax lyrical about their religiosity - use the 'abortion' issue to lure people towards tax cuts for the 1%, making healthcare a privilege for the few rather than a right for the many, unlimited access to firearms, hardline immigration policies and a host of other policies which are hardly in keeping with Catholic, or Christian, ethics.

Catholicism transcends the left-right agendas of US politics, but some Republican Catholic activists have no room for such nuance. They try and mould Catholic doctrine to fit libertarian, neoliberal, nativist principles. If there is one thing I hope people take away from my posts on this forum, it is that Catholic Social Doctrine is irreconcilable with GOP American politics as it is presently constituted.

My understanding is likewise that "nones" are not necessarily atheists (which denotes a positive commitment to non-belief in God or a higher power) but seem to be either just averse to organised religion (i.e. spiritual, not religious) or to Christianity in particular as it has been communicated to them. And who can blame them? If not for the fact that I have drank so deeply from the Catholic Christian tradition such that I know what it is actually about, I would probably have joined them in exodus.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm with you and the author so far as conservative Christianity in America is concerned, although regrettably its not "just" Evangelicals - some lay-persons among their Catholic neighbours, affiliated with the Tea Party movement and Trump, habitually ignore the hierarchy of their church and Pope Francis whenever a social justice issue arises.

So, its a problem with conservative Christianity in general in the U.S., with the Evangelicals and Southern Baptists merely being the most prominent examples of this phenomenon.

Yes, I agree. I was forgetting about those Christians other than radical Evangelicals who are creating an image of Christianity as a wholly toxic religion. If I believe in Satan, I'd suspect he'd taken over conservative Christianity in order to destroy Christianity itself.

The difference here is that the Evangelical laity largely take the lead from their pastors, so there is an actual theological culture at the heart of the problem, in the seminaries. For the Catholic side of this coin, there isn't a theological issue among priests or bishops, overall (pardoning the rare exception) but rather it is more grassroots alone. Just earlier this year:

That's interesting. Would you elaborate on that, please?

His 100-page document – an apostolic exhortation titled “Gaudete et Exsultate,” or “Rejoice and Be Glad” – issued a rebuke to Catholic anti-abortion activists who concentrate so closely on the issue of abortion that it eclipses other questions.

"The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist,” the religious leader wrote in an apostolic exhortation on the subject of holiness revealed by the Vatican on Monday morning.

“Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned.”​

​

Besides being theologically sound, the Pope's exhortation is simple sanity. To obsess with one thing, and one thing alone, is certainly unbalanced.

Basically, the more Machiavellian amongst them - that is to say, the politicians who wax lyrical about their religiosity - use the 'abortion' issue to lure people towards tax cuts for the 1%, making healthcare a privilege for the few rather than a right for the many, unlimited access to firearms, hardline immigration policies and a host of other policies which are hardly in keeping with Catholic, or Christian, ethics.

Indeed. It's how those politicians get people to vote against their own best interests.

Sean, I can recall growing up at a time and place when the greatest compliment you could give someone to honor their moral values was to call them a "True Christian". There was literally no greater compliment than that. None. Even the town atheists used the term when they praised outstanding morals and values!

And it wasn't just in my hometown. Since moving to Colorado, I have now and then come across people in their seventies and eighties who've reminded me that being called a True Christian once meant you had exemplary values.

To be called that meant you treated everyone, regardless of class, circumstances, sex, race, etc with respect, decency, and kindness. It meant you were not a hypocrite, but backed your words with actions. It meant you were charitable, forgiving, caring, and generous. And it meant you emulated as near as humanly possible both the actual teachings of Jesus, and the ideal of Jesus as derived from his life and teachings.

This was all before the rise to power and prominence of such folks as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robinson, and James Dobson.

I once read a shocking quote of Dobson in a local newspaper (He lives here in Colorado Springs). The quote was taken from a speech he gave early on in his "ministry", and it went something like this: "We are going to show people that Christianity is not the soft, sentimental religion of old ladies and weak men that so many people see it as today, but instead is an angry religion with an iron fist."

Well, Dobson got his wish, didn't he? Today the term "True Christian" is only used sarcastically, if at all. At least, I myself have not heard it used otherwise by anyone in the past 20 or more years, nor have other people I've spoken with. Anyone much under my age, 60, has never in their lives heard it used other than sarcastically. And I would strongly suggest those facts are telling.

I think it speaks volumes about the real status of Christianity in this country. Christianity has lost it's status as the source of exemplary values in America. The "conservatives" just don't know it yet. They are blind to the damage they've done. Whether it will ever truly regain that status seems to me unlikely so long as "conservative" Christianity is predominant.

If future historians ever mark the day Christianity in America began its decline into irrelevance, they will surely note that day was when it lost its status as the exemplary moral code.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me that there are two fairly typical (but by no means comprehemsive) situations.

One is that of people who decide that the church lost its way, but are still believers in Christianity in the abstract. Or, at the very least, still theists.

The other is that of people who were not too attached to belief proper,but valued the ritual and bonding, but may now be finding less appeal in it. Ironically, as those are alienated, a stronger, less balanced core of "true believers" develops.

 

[joe1776]

My understanding is likewise that "nones" are not necessarily atheists (which denotes a positive commitment to non-belief in God or a higher power) but seem to be either just averse to organised religion (i.e. spiritual, not religious) or to Christianity in particular as it has been communicated to them. And who can blame them? If not for the fact that I have drank so deeply from the Catholic Christian tradition such that I know what it is actually about, I would probably have joined them in exodus.

I left the Church many years ago and became "spiritual but not religious" (although that phrase is of a recent origin) but today's Catholic Church is better than the one I left. A progressive faction seems to have control in the Vatican.

I don't agree on the abortion issue -- and the handling of pedophile priests was sad -- but the charitable work done around the world weighs much heavier on the positive side.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't agree on the abortion issue -- and the handling of pedophile priests was sad -- but the charitable work done around the world weighs much heavier on the positive side.

I'm largely in agreement with you, especially if you extend "abortion" to include the birth control issue. I never was a Catholic, however, but I married one once.

 

[Sunstone]

Ironically, as those are alienated, a stronger, less balanced core of "true believers" develops.

That's a good point, and it reminds me of Yeats:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

 

[Altfish]

I don't agree on the abortion issue -- and the handling of pedophile priests was sad -- but the charitable work done around the world weighs much heavier on the positive side.

The charitable work is good but too much of it comes with strings, "We'll feed you if you attend our service".
As an atheist my charitable giving tries to avoid the religious organisations; so Medicine Sans Frontiers, Oxfam, Age Concern get my money instead of the likes of Christian Aid. Some of the shoebox charities are awful; getting kids to fill shoeboxes and then sticking a Christian message in them, many schools around us have banned them.

 

[Sunstone]

The charitable work is good but too much of it comes with strings, "We'll feed you if you attend our service".

I'm not sure about elsewhere, Altfish, but here in Colorado Springs, the Catholic Charities runs a soup kitchen in which they prohibit any proselytizing. I used to eat there when I was homeless and never once did anyone even ask me about my religion, let alone try to convert me or get me to listen to a sermon.

On the other hand, I have heard reliable reports that the Evangelical run soup kitchen here in town forces anyone who wants food to first listen to a sermon that can stretch 45 or more minutes long. I never went there myself, but I've heard multiple reports of the place that are in agreement.

Of course, I can't say if the policies of the Catholic Charities in this town match the policies of the branches in other towns, nor if Evangelicals are everywhere the same.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, I agree. I was forgetting about those Christians other than radical Evangelicals who are creating an image of Christianity as a wholly toxic religion. If I believe in Satan, I'd suspect he'd taken over conservative Christianity in order to destroy Christianity itself.

Excellent post, it really offers folks here an in-depth, personal account of the increasingly depreciated moral influence of Christianity in U.S. politics and cultural life over the past few decades.

I concur that it has lost the monopoly on 'values' that it once possessed, almost by default, courtesy of its having been co-opted by the Religious Right and Reaganism (or god forbid, I daren't even say it, Trumpism. Ewwwww). This has led to a loss in active membership and even faith on the part of many Americans, particularly the young.

In the UK, we have a rather different situation. The CofE (Anglican denomination) has functioned and continues to function at the state-level, as an established church with 26 Lords Spiritual, that is bishops, retaining a legislative role (albeit limited) in the House of Lords (upper house of our bicameral legislature) and the Queen remaining in her role as Head of the CofE and Protector of the Faith.

All this, in spite of the fact that nearly 50% of Britons are irreligious while our youth population is far more overtly secularized, even atheistic, than in the U.S. (where most young people are still theists of some kind). In Britain, the Anglicans haven't followed the U.S. model of the Religious Right. They have actually moved with the evolving social mores. And yet they have suffered the same, indeed an even more alarming, drop in numbers. I don't believe in state churches or religions. I support a "free markplace" of religions under an impartial public authority. It's better for the churches and individual conscience. The CofE looks like an out of touch relic of the Victorian era.

This goes to show that what the churches really should do, is just preach the Gospel as it is. The radical, counter-cultural, right-and-left transcending gospel. Nobody wants Religious Right preachers who belie the doctrines of their saviour by ignoring the plight of the poor and the marginalized, in favour of cut-throat, unfettered, winner-takes-all capitalism. Neither, though, are they particularly interested in wishy-washy bishops who want to appear 'hip' and 'down-with-the-kids', while retaining legislative power and privilege in a nominally secular state, and who do not set any moral boundaries at all and seem to regard central dogmas of the religion ("that resurrection thing? um, yeah, kind of irrelevant today") as an embarrassment at best.

We shouldn't be decrying social progress and supporting elite privilege (like the Religious Right), nor should we be blindly following behind secular society, hoping to eat the crumbs (like the wishy-washes). How the mighty have fallen! Where are the William Wilberforces of today (an Evangelical British Christian who led the abolitionist movement) and the Martin Luther's Kings (civil rights)? We used to lead the charge, now we either put barriers up to it or follow others.

Christianity has gone wrong on both sides of the pond, albeit for very quite different reasons.

Real Christianity, is the Christianity of The Didache (the earliest catechism from the first century, circa. 50 - 80 A.D.), and it teaches a perennially challenging message that transcends human tribalistic politics grouped under umbrellas of "left versus right" inherited from the French Revolution. Here's what it taught:


CHURCH FATHERS: The Didache


The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, your neighbour as yourself; and all things whatsoever you would should not occur to you, do not also do to another. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what reward is there, if you love those who love you? Do not also the Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy. Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If someone gives you a blow upon your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect.

If someone impresses you for one mile, go with him two. If someone takes away your cloak, give him also your coat. If someone takes from you what is yours, ask it not back, for indeed you are not able. Give to every one that asks you, and ask it not back; for the Father wills that to all should be given of our own blessings (free gifts). Happy is he that gives according to the commandment; for he is guiltless. Woe to him that receives; for if one having need receives, he is guiltless; but he that receives not having need, shall pay the penalty.

And the way of death is this: First of all it is evil and full of curse: murders, adulteries, lusts...rape, false witnessings, hypocrisies, double-heartedness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boastfulness; persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a lie, loving vanities, pursuing requital, not having compassion on a poor man, not labouring for the afflicted, not knowing Him that made them, murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, turning away from him that is in want, afflicting him that is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from all these.

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. You shall not covet the things of your neighbour, Exodus 20:17 you shall not forswear yourself, Matthew 5:34 you shall not bear false witness, Exodus 20:16 you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbour. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.​

Do not be like those who reach out to take, but draw back when the time comes for giving. If the labour of your hands has been productive, your giving will be a ransom for sins. Give without hesitating and without grumbling, and you will see Whose generosity will requite you. Never turn away the needy; share all your possessions with your brother, and do not claim that anything is your own (cf. Acts 2:44-45). If you and he are joint participators in things immortal, how much more so in things mortal?

​

This Christianity will displease people and please people, whatever your vantage point. But it's authentic.

(continued.....)

 

[Vouthon]

That's interesting. Would you elaborate on that, please?

Sure thing.

In Evangelical churches, many pastors are being taught and thus preaching from the pulpit outright heresies, like the abomination of sacrilege that is the so-called "prosperity gospel" and American nationalism, to the exclusion of immigrants, in plain violation of the ethic of the Good Samaritan. The problem here is actually theological: there needs to be a change in the actual ecclesiastical culture itself, because this bad theology (and really, it's ****-poor) is infecting the minds of the laity. So we have a top-down, as well as bottom-up crisis in the Evangelical denominations.

In the Catholic Church, it's rather different. The hierarchy in the U.S., and internationally in the Vatican, has long clashed with the Religious Right on hot-button issues like immigration, healthcare, gun ownership, preferential options for the poor/social welfare and a host of other areas. Encyclicals have been published by popes. Trump's desire to build a wall on the Mexican border was actually explicitly called out by Pope Francis as abhorrent to the Christian injunction to welcome the stranger in need.

It isn't new. In 1986, during the Reagan era, the Catholic Bishops Conference in the U.S. issued a document entitled Economic Justice for All, in which they wrote:

"...The tax system should be continually evaluated in terms of its impact on the poor...First, the tax system should raise adequate revenues to pay for the public needs of society, especially to meet the basic needs of the poor. Secondly, the tax system should be structured according to the principle of progressivity, so that those with relatively greater financial resources pay a higher rate of taxation. The inclusion of such a principle in tax policies is an important means of reducing the severe inequalities of income and wealth in the nation. ... Thirdly, families below the official poverty line should not be required to pay income taxes. Such families are, by definition, without sufficient resources to purchase the basic necessities of life. They should not be forced to bear the additional burden of paying income taxes...More specifically, it is the responsibility of all citizens, acting through their government, to assist and empower the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, and the unemployed...Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes..."

Economic Justice for All (#123), pastoral letter promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1986
​

But many lay-persons, with conservative political values, deny the church's moral right to proclaim binding doctrine in these areas.

On the left, you have prominent Catholics like Joe Biden who say that they are "personally opposed to abortion, but will not try to curtail it legislatively". That's a perfectly sane position to take. We cannot, and should not aspire to impose, our religious values on others when the issue in question is so divisive. Any efforts should seek to influence the conscience of people, not use the legal system to penalize people making such impossibly difficult decisions.

But the position of right-wing Catholics on the issues I've just mentioned, where they overtly flout church teaching, actually seeks to deny the social doctrines or the church's right to authoritatively proclaim it. It's not a case of, "I personally agree but we can't enforce this" or "I struggle with this but respect the pope's right to say it", rather it's "I don't personally agree, the pope has no right to say this, I know better than the Magisterium".

You get my drift?

This is a serious problem.

I'll give you another example. In 1967, Pope Paul VI issued a social encyclical entitled Populorum Progressio, in which he stated:

"24... Consequently, it is not permissible for citizens who have garnered sizable income from the resources and activities of their own nation to deposit a large portion of their income in foreign countries for the sake of their own private gain alone, taking no account for their country's interests; in doing this, they clearly wrong their country.

33 Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for "directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations

However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

This unbridled capitalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the "international imperialism of money."(26)

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)

[This] type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day..."

​

Here was the response from some 'Conservative' Catholics writing in popular American newspapers:

Wall Street Journal (30 March 1967) 14. "Pope Paul's encyclical lends the mantle of religion to certain ideas which are profoundly secular in origin, and advocates programs of a type now undergoing widespread reappraisal by their one-time secular sponsors....The trouble with making religious tenets of this souped-up Marxism is that it is highly unlikely to help the bulk of poor nations (which) suffer not from an excess of capitalism, but from a paucity of it.... It is both curious and sad that these mistaken attitudes toward foreign aid should now be advanced from the realm of religion. For the realm of history, as more people are starting to recognize, shows that they impede rather than advance the development of peoples."​

Time (7 April 1967) 70. The encyclical has a "radical tone," and parts of it "had the strident tone of an early 20th century Marxist polemic." Its "blunt attack on capitalism" is aimed at an old-style capitalism that is dead. "It was surprising that he did not acknowledge the way in which business enterprise has developed into a creative, socially conscious component of the industrial West." Populorum Progressio was humanistic, "but its perspective was that of another time."​

The Economist (8 April 1967) 114. Some communist papers claimed that Pope Paul gives the imprimatur to Marx's works, justifies revolutions, and condemns all capitalist and imperialist exploitation. Some right-wing newspapers seem unable to find words to discuss the encyclical at all.
​

Sound familiar? American capitalists have responded exactly the same way to Pope Francis's Evangelii Gaudium today in 2013.

Did you read above what the Early Church, in the first century Didache, was proclaiming as the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"? i.e.

The way of death is this...turning away from him that is in want, afflicting him that is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from all these...Never turn away the needy; share all your possessions with your brother, and do not claim that anything is your own (cf. Acts 2:44-45)​

I guess they also didn't have the "authority" to proclaim this "souped-up Marxism" either, eh?

 

[Vouthon]

I'm largely in agreement with you, especially if you extend "abortion" to include the birth control issue. I never was a Catholic, however, but I married one once.

The birth control issue was, I sometimes feel, perhaps our modern Galileo moment.

Much of the logic behind it was sound theologically (i.e. "if we permit this like the Anglican and Orthodox Church, young kids these days will just have casual sex without any attempt at relationships and there will be a commitment-o-phobe culture") but the church, in practice, has relegated the issue to the 'internal forum' i.e. a couple may follow the dictates of their conscience and use contraception, even though it is objectively not considered moral it may be subjectively ok in their case.

In principle, hardly any Catholics follow the church on this and just use the internal forum argument. (which is theologically valid, although I haven't explained the nuances of it well in the above).

I think there may be some doctrinal leniency or rather development on this in the future, following our Eastern Orthodox brethren's approach (i.e. we have an ideal but make concessions to human weakness), but never on the abortion issue in principle.

As you can see, that was taught even in the Didache and by all the Church Fathers. It's part of our sacred tradition, such that our understanding of it can develop but the principle won't ever be dislodged.

That said, it's basically a religious principle - when a foetus becomes 'ensouled' - such that I don't think we can make any good secular arguments for imposing our understanding on others at the legal level, as the Religious Right hope to do. But we will never change our doctrine on this point, anymore than we can on the preferential option for the poor or the command to love our enemies.

But if you don't share the religious premise about ensoulement coming from alleged divine revelation (doctrinal for us, as it is), then I honestly can't really see why the objective person would be swayed.

Also, I should note that I have nothing against gay marriage and gay adoption - so long as the religious freedom of the churches to recognize sacramental marriage as only existing between a man and woman is equally protected. I diverge with the Religious Right on this too. What right do I have to restrict to gay people from having a secular wedding, along with legal rights and obligations? None. So I support gay marriage, and I also think that kids are infinetly better off with a loving gay couple than in an orphanage or with a bad heterosexual couple.

But, I stress, equally nobody should expect the church to change its definition of the sacrament of matrimony. We must uphold the freedoms of gay couples and of religious people, as befits an impartial, secular state.

But I do want the CofE disestablished as a state church in the UK. I don't agree in principle with state religions.

 

[David T]

[Source: "The Christians Making Atheists"]

I agree with the author that a prominent segment of Christianity in America (i.e. the more radical, fundamentalist sort of Evangelicalism) is rapidly alienating people from the Christian religion. I disagree with his notion that the people so alienated are for the most part becoming atheists. I think instead they are by and large becoming unchurched, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so forth.

Comments? Observations? Questions? Unhinged, mouth-frothing rants?

semantics is an interesting topic. Religion can become incredibly caustic, because of semantics . But science doesn't magically remove that as well.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I suspect many who claim to be Muslims are doing much the same - to make others less likely to become Muslims. Keep up all the good work chaps!

 

[Mock Turtle]

semantics is an interestingtopic. Religion can become semantically incredibly caustic. But science doesn't magically remove that as well.
View attachment 21706

All you feminists take note! ...........................................................................................................

 

[Quintessence]

There has been some study regarding why folks convert to and from various religions. I think it's worth taking a look at some of that research to provide some additional perspective.

From - Faith in Flux

This data is somewhat old at this point, and it has limitations in terms of how categories were broken down and the level of detail, but there are basically a top three that emerge from this:

1. People leave because they stop being involved or devout
2. People leave because they find their former religion unsatisfactory and find more satisfaction somewhere else, whether that's in practices or beliefs
3. People leave because of interpersonal dynamics and politics that happen in any human organization, religious or otherwise

 

[Stevicus]

[Source: "The Christians Making Atheists"]

I agree with the author that a prominent segment of Christianity in America (i.e. the more radical, fundamentalist sort of Evangelicalism) is rapidly alienating people from the Christian religion. I disagree with his notion that the people so alienated are for the most part becoming atheists. I think instead they are by and large becoming unchurched, people who identify as "spiritual but not religious", and so forth.

Comments? Observations? Questions? Unhinged, mouth-frothing rants?

There could be some truth to the idea, although I find the phrase "Christians making atheists" to be somewhat weird. But it is true that recent generations have turned away from Christianity, although not all of them are turning into atheists. Some become spiritual but not religious. Others might gravitate towards non-Christian religions.

One might look at traditionally Christian countries and see indications that, as a spiritual and moral influence, the Christian Church has failed miserably. Apart from those openly rejecting Christianity or turning away from it, there is an unprecedented level of greed, hedonism, materialism, nihilism, violence, militarism, malignant nationalism, and other forms of moral turpitude which would indicate that the Church has done a rather poor job of leading its flock to God.

If the idea that "you will know them by their fruits" has any merits, then one only has to look at the fruits of Christianity and the kind of society it has produced. They can play the blame game all they want - blame it on atheists, gays, commies, Muslims - whoever they want. But in the end, it's still their own failure.

 

[Vouthon]

@Sunstone consider this extraordinary intervention by allies of Pope Francis last year:


Jesuit journal close to pope says "Manichean vision" behind Trump

Jesuit journal close to pope says “Manichean vision” behind Trump

Two of Pope Francis’s closest collaborators have accused religious leaders close to the administration of President Donald Trump of having a “Manichean vision,” based on a “gradually radicalized” theology growing from the early 20th century fundamentalist movement.

Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, editor-in-chief of the influential Rome-based Jesuit publication La Civiltà Cattolica, and Marcelo Figueroa, the editor-in-chief of the Argentinean edition of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, co-wrote an article in the latest edition of La Civiltà Cattolicalooking at the relationship between “Evangelical Fundamentalism” and “Catholic Integralism.”

Since the election of Francis, Spadaro has often been seen at his side, and has published interviews with the pope and transcriptions of some of the pontiff’s private encounters with members of religious orders. Figueroa, a Presbyterian pastor, is an old friend of the pope, and was personally chosen by Francis to head up the new Argentinian edition of the L’Osservatore Romano, which began publishing in December 2016.

In the article, the authors directly attack Church Militant, a conservative digital media company covering Catholic issues run by layman Michael Voris.

Spadaro and Figueroa claim the organization favors “shocking rhetoric” and “uses Christian symbols to impose itself.” (Voris and other personnel from Church Militant were recently asked to stop distributing flyers in the hotel hosting the July 1-4 “Convocation of Catholic Leaders” sponsored by the U.S. bishops in Orlando, Florida, after convocation organizers said the activity was being disruptive.)

In the article, the authors give a brief history of American fundamentalism, as well as other conservative evangelical movements such as proponents of the prosperity Gospel and “dominionism,” which seeks to establish government based upon “biblical law.”

The article says these fundamentalist groups see the United States to be a nation blessed by God, and in recent years have “demonized” their enemies.

“The panorama of threats to their understanding of the American way of life have included modernist spirits, the black civil rights movement, the hippy movement, communism, feminist movements and so on. And now in our day there are the migrants and the Muslims,” the authors write.

“To maintain conflict levels, their biblical exegeses have evolved toward a decontextualized reading of the Old Testament texts about the conquering and defense of the ‘promised land,’ rather than be guided by the incisive look, full of love, of Jesus in the Gospels.”

The article states this world view is not averse to physical conflicts, and even often compares modern wars to the “heroic conquests” of biblical figures such as Gideon and David.

“In this Manichean vision, belligerence can acquire a theological justification and there are pastors who seek a biblical foundation for it, using the scriptural texts out of context,” the authors state.

Trump - despite his many marriages, multiple casinos, and limited understanding of Christian doctrine (he once said he has never asked God for forgiveness) - won 81 percent of the white evangelical vote.

Catholics, on the other hand, gave about half of their votes to Trump (some data suggests Trump won the Catholic vote; others say Hilary Clinton did), but the president received strong support from some conservative Catholic organizations such as Church Militant.

Spadaro and Figueroa argue “a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.”

They suggest the plan is to set up a “kingdom of the divinity” and this generates an “ideology of conquest.”

Spadaro and Figueroa go on to say the religious and political should not be confused, and that this goes against the political philosophy of Francis.

“An evident aspect of Pope Francis’s geopolitics rests in not giving theological room to the power to impose oneself or to find an internal or external enemy to fight,” they write. “There is a need to flee the temptation to project divinity on political power that then uses it for its own ends.”

The article in La Civiltà Cattolica is the latest chapter in the tempestuous relationship between Francis and Trump.

In February 2016, controversy started during the pope’s flight back from Mexico, mere hours after visiting Ciudad Juarez, a city on the northern Mexican border, where he’d lamented the “human tragedy” of immigration.

Journalists traveling with the pope asked him about Trump, and his proposed border wall.

“Building walls instead of bridges is not Christian; this is not in the Gospel,” the pope said.

He added: “I’d just say that this man is not Christian if he said it this way.”

Trump responded to the comments, saying it was “disgraceful” for a religious leader to question another person’s faith.

Trump also accused Francis of being “political,” and said the pontiff doesn’t understand the problems Americans face.​

These kinds of explicit interventions by the papacy, singling out one country, are extremely rare. But it demonstrates how seriously at odds the Vatican and the hierarchy in the U.S. currently are with some prominent right-wing lay-persons, whom the church is effectively accusing of heresy. There is a real battle of hearts and minds at the moment in the U.S. between the laity and the clergy.

In the U.S. Congress last year, it actually caused a verbal sparring match between two 'practicing' Catholic politicians, the GOP's Paul Ryan (a fan of Ayn Rand and libertarianism) and the Democrat Senator Joe Kennedy III (the grandson of Bobby Kennedy, and great-nephew of JFK, the first Catholic president):

Congressman Joe Kennedy III Interview on Politics in the Era of Trump - Town and Country Magazine

In March, a day after Speaker of the House Paul Ryan—a fellow Irish Catholic—called the plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act an “act of mercy,” Kennedy took the floor.

“With all due respect to our speaker, he and I must have read different scripture,” Kennedy said. “The one I read calls on us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, and to comfort the sick. It reminds us that we are judged not by how we treat the powerful but by how we care for the least among us.

“This is not an act of mercy,” he continued. “It is an act of malice.” He was speaking up not just for his values but for a law that Ted Kennedy had spent his career working toward, dying just months before it passed.​

On this, Joe Kennedy (whatever one thinks of his trust funds and privileged background as a member of America's de facto royal family), is being the better Catholic.

The two of them had taken their spat three years earlier to the pages of the Jesuit journal America Magazine:

Dignity for All: Justice begins with economic security.

By Joe Kennedy III

2014

Editor’s Note: This article is the second in a two-part series. We asked two prominent members of Congress, both Catholics with famous names, to respond to Pope Francis’ repeated calls to empower the poor. The first response, by Congressman Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, appeared on Oct. 13.

It is the lesson of fundamental human dignity that lies at the very heart of our Catholic faith. Throughout the Gospel, we are called on to acknowledge the humanity of those who are suffering, impoverished or oppressed. Matthew summons us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger and comfort the afflicted. Luke tells us of the good Samaritan’s gentle mercy, kneeling beside his bleeding neighbor on the road to Jericho while others simply passed by.

In the Catholic tradition, these stories elevate calls for charity and compassion into calls for justice. They echo the same self-evident truth on which our founding fathers staked life and liberty: all men are created equal. Whether in church or state, this country has been anchored by the belief that the same spark of human dignity resides in all of us, that there is inherent value and untold potential in each person...

It is a great legacy of the Catholic Church and Jesuit tradition that communities of the faithful gather every day, around the world, to bless and to serve the poor, the meek, the mourning, the hungry and the persecuted. But “charity is no substitute for justice withheld,” St. Augustine reminds us. The “economy of exclusion,” aptly named by Pope Francis, will require more than individual acts of service to include those left out. It will require a collective effort to reverse decades of policy choices that have stacked the deck against the poorest among us...

“Government,” wrote the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in the pastoral letter “Economic Justice for All," “is a means by which we can act together to protect what is important to us.” Or as President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, put it: “The government is us; we are the government, you and I.”...

Our most systemic shortcomings have always required collective action. If man or market were enough to capture justice on their own, then we would have never written a Constitution. We never would have needed amendments to abolish slavery, establish equal protection and due process or give women the right to vote. We would have never passed the Civil Rights Act, created Social Security, constructed a G.I. Bill or passed the Affordable Care Act.

We did these things because nearly 250 years ago we promised to build a country where every person was valued, recognized and counted. Our history is the story of a people fighting—together—to live up to that ideal.

That promise strikes me each time we kneel for the holiest moment of Sunday Mass. At the consecration, when bread and wine become body and blood, the priest repeats Jesus’ words “Do this in memory of me.” He is calling us to remember him in celebrating the Eucharist as Catholics have done for centuries. But I believe that he softly calls us to do much more. This means gathering in community to share and support one another. This means going out into the world to serve and to love as Jesus did. This means using whatever gifts and talents we have to leave our world a little more just and fair than we found it.
​

 

[Jumi]

Jesuit journal close to pope says "Manichean vision" behind Trump

The Manicheans rolling in their graves being compared to Trump.