Yesterday's Chicago Daily Herald reported that atheist activist Rob Sherman has praised the city of Chicago for permitting the Thomas More Society to put up a 19 foot cross in Daley Plaza for its sunrise Easter service today. Sherman says he backs the right of individuals to engage in private religious speech in public. He only objects to government supported expressions of religion. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
16 comments:
Sounds like a fair-minded, reasonable man.
I wonder how many people really want to see us do away with Christmas and Good Friday holidays, Thanksgiving, --such nostalgic American traditions --so much a part of our culture. Strict separation would mean no recognition of these Christian-established events.
Well, I for one could do without Christmas. Our landfills wouldn't be so full.
I could also do without good Friday. It can be your holiday if you want but it's not mine.
I'd keep Thanksgiving though. It may have been established by Christians but no one I know considers it a Christian event.
P.S. Do you know who Rob Sherman is?? See:
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/10/suit-challenges-illinois-moment-of.html
I'm not really sure what makes Good Friday particularly nostalgic -- though I can see a rationale for keeping it if otherwise, hordes of government workers would take it as a personal day and bring everything to a standstill anyway. I'd leave that at state level, though.
Christmas is pretty much part of American culture, though. A fair number of atheists celebrate a lot of these holidays. My own kids hunted for Easter eggs yesterday, and they have absolutely no idea there's a religious connection.
Sherman seems to be following his principles. He's sued to have religious symbols removed from official seals of government -- nothing about that stands in opposition with allowing private religious speech in the public arena.
cryptic life --do you want your kids to NEVER know of the religious significance of EAster --such that they are ignorant of a major world religion and a real event in history? The real event which is indisputable to historians and archeologists is the life and crucifixion and empty tomb of Jesus Christ. The resurrection and miracles are disputables that we believe or disbelieve by choice. Neither of us can prove our position.
There is no question, however, that the early church existed as a religious movement that affected the world for good (despite the times when corruption and ethnic rivalries caused damage to His cause in these 21 centuries since He lived). The church then and now has continuously "preached Christ [the annointed one from the only Creator God] crucified, risen and coming again."
I hear such ignorance when people aren't even sure there was a Jesus --whose followers claimed what they did about Him. When they refer to the whole Bible as myth, without any historical validity. My understanding is that an archeologist proved Pontius Pilate existed in an engraved stone he found --though there aren't other mentions of him in writings from the era. The Bible is one of the best preserved historical account of those times. It is a history book, and men disbelieved the disciples' accounts then, same as now. It still takes faith to be a Christian--but not blind faith--not illogical faith. Many scholars were and are men of faith in the accounts of Jesus --same as they believe the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses --usually thought to be real historical figures by learned people.
"do you want your kids to NEVER know of the religious significance of EAster such that they are ignorant of a major world religion and a real event in history?"
LOL. I clearly have a lot of work cut out for me, since they're in the American school system. How many high school students do you think are ignorant of significant real events in the history of Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam? Or for that matter, major historical events generally?
For what it's worth, though, I'm not going to hide it from them, and eventually they will know.
Of course, eggs, rabbits, flowers -- these are all pagan. Have your kids been taught that? Have they been taught why there's a Christmas tree, or why Christmas falls in December even though Christ's birthdate was probably midsummmer?
As for the faith, I'm not sure how you'd get it not being illogical. If you know there's no evidence, then faith might not be blind, but it's still illogical.
I would not say there is no evidence. Are we talking about Jesus' life and death and the claims of the first century church? as written by the first century church leaders? Or are we talking about evidence of the Resurrection itself? I don't think Christianity being about a resurrected Saviour would have gotten off the ground if the resurrection had not really occured.
IT might have been a religion about love and forgiveness --but I really don't think the disciples had the courage to perpetuate a myth about Christ. They were bold --AFTER they saw Him resurrected --not before.And willing to die for that message.
They didn't need a resurrection to make a religion equal to other religions which don't have a resurrected savior. Take Islam. But the first Messianic Jews (JEws who were the first Christians) needed the resurrection to make them bold enough to buck the world's pagan religions and the Jewish establishment which had crucified their leader.
THAT's evidence enough for me --not to mention the assurance in the spirit/in the soul one has when he reaches out to Christ for truth and finds forgiveness and a spiritual peace and joy.
Barb, I don't think that's evidence you're quoting. It seems more like speculation. You're conjecturing they needed to see Jesus resurrected to be bold enough to spread the message. That may be evidence enough for you but it's not the kind that would hold up in court or the kind of evidence people mean when they ask for evidence. It seems more like rationalization.
The key events of the other world religions don't have the significance of the Christian events. They are attempts to find Truth or to assert it. I suspect Mohammad was deceived by his angel visitor --as Lucifer himself appears as an angel of light
--and 600 years after the eye witness accounts this angel slyly said, "Yes, Jesus is a prophet --but he didn't die at all --he was assumed into Heaven from a roof top --a body double died on the cross in his stead. He didn't resurrect because he never died. And Mohammad --YOU are the greatest prophet." And yet, Mohammad DID die. So why is he greater than Christ? Mohammad is the false prophet foretold by Christ --who would, like Satan, an angel of light, deceive many. Muslims think they must work their way to salvation and can never be sure if they qualify. Christians know that Jesus was worthy --HE qualified.
Yes, christians know about the pagan roots of symbols which we have simply appropriated for our own purposes. The eggs and bunnies symbolize new life, springtime; both can be seen as symbols of resurrection, renewal, being born again, new life in Christ.
The Christmas tree with its evergreen symbolizes eternal life, also. The red of Christmas symbolizes Christ's blood shed for the remission of sins --and the white for purity and sins made white as snow by the blood of Christ --and the gold for his Kingship and also as a symbol of eternity.
Maybe it is more rationalization than evidence --but it is a rationale for faith that has much validity. The disciples hid out, dejected at Christ's crucifixion, afraid of their own. Where do they suddenly get the boldness to proclaim that He is risen?? from a resurrected Christ.
Then you have the story of Paul --who did not meet Christ on earth --who helped to round up Christians for the gov't. for purposes of persecution --until he encounters a light out of which the voice of Christ speaks to him --and he is blinded. Jesus tells him to go to the city where a man will come to him. Then God tells Ananias where to find Paul (Saul, then) and how to help him receive back his sight. And Ananias obeys the vision and finds Saul and restores his sight. Now Saul/Paul is able to say, "I once was blind, but now I see."
Some of the best writings for the New Testament Church come from Paul's hand --though he never met Christ in the flesh. His conversion is a testament to the truth of the Resurrected Christ and His divine nature.
I don't know about you, but I've never yet seen anyone heal people as miraculously as happened at Jesus' hands --and for the conversion of Saul.
I believe the stories. And such faith is empowering for daily life.
You haven't seen anyone healed miraculously at Jesus' hands, either. Your view on the significance of the supposed resurrection is colored by believing it occurred.
You say "Christians know" the pagan roots of the religious traditions, but not whether your kids know. This is after accusing me of keeping my kids in ignorance. Perhaps you don't have children. So, tell me -- if I went to a typical Christian child, seven years old, and asked them what Jesus had to do with Easter eggs, do you seriously think they'd explain the pagan roots?
I agree that at 7 we would not be telling our children about all the people who don't believe --and probably not the history lesson of pagan roots to our traditions.
They certainly learned it somewhere in their upbringing, however --they need to know what the unbelievers are going to say in colleges --calling Christian stories mythological,etc. Going to public school, they certainly learned that they were in the minority as people who REALLY knew and believed the Biblical accounts behind the holidays--who even LIVED as though the Gospel of Christ were true.
Wait -- Barb -- you're saying at 7 they wouldn't know the existence of atheists? Seven is second grade. They could already have met unbelievers by that time.
My second-grade son has certainly met believers. He's met young-earth creationists, actually, and spoken with them. Why you'd keep children ignorant of an entire section of the population is beyond me.
It's been a long time since my kids were 7 --it's possible that we spoke of those who didn't believe in God or Jesus. My grandsons do know --and they are home schooled. They know that we need to tell the world that JEsus came. I suppose my kids did know --because they learned about missionaries and witness.
So you really tell your kids there is no God? no loving Creator and no after life? How cheery!
A cheery god? I find it a little hard to fathom that that's your objection. You mean, like one who will allow one to burn in a pit of fire for eternity for something like masturbation (or, even worse, not believing)? Or one that will drown the entire Earth or turn people into salt?
Or do you mean I should tell them about some other deity?
As for afterlife, the reason you feel it's bleak not to have one is because you haven't come to terms with death. Because you cannot conceive your own nonexistence, you fear it and reject it as a possibility.
Of course, the only reason I had to tell him anything at all about it is because of others proselytizing to him. I know you don't have a problem with directing your kids towards your own beliefs since you believe disbelief is immoral, but for many atheists who do not see a moral impact of belief or nonbelief the immorality of indoctrinating your children is to be avoided. That includes indoctrinating them into atheism. So, no -- I don't tell him there is no God -- I tell him I think it's extremely unlikely there's any gods, I tell him about the various gods people have believed in in other cultures and at other times. And, I let him listen to evangelicals. That's one of the surest means of preventing god-belief I know.
"...I let him listen to evangelicals. That's one of the surest means of preventing god-belief I know."
ROTFL! An excellent point, that!
Children get very smart at a young age, especially about things their parents don't want them to know.
That's why more kids could explain sexuality to their parents than the other way around, n'est-ce pas?
They are like sponges, soaking up all the knowledge they can wrap their minds around; but they're also gullible, and they tend to believe everything they're told, especially by people they trust.
That's why I think it's a bad idea to teach children anything about specific religions until they're about thirteen. They need to know a little bit about a lot of different religions. Mostly, they need to know that when push comes to shove, the choice is theirs. And theirs alone.
I would not wait until 13 to require teeth-brushing, school attendance, bedtimes, baths, etc --so as a believer, I'm certainly not going to leave the issue of eternal life and faith in the category of smorgasbord options for personal preference--all equally valid --all roads leading to Rome. I will teach Him early that "Jesus loves me --for the Bible tells me so."
When the child realizes that we die, I'm glad to tell him my beliefs --that there is life after death with Jesus who is like a good shepherd to the sheep. That this Jesus is God's Son who died for our sins so we can go to heaven when we die and be with our loved ones.
If I tell him I don't think there are any gods or any life after death -and that Grandma only lives in our photos and our memories, he will probably trust that I'm right and be an atheist like his parent. And I don't think that IS a happy philosophy. But it is your right to teach your child that way, of course.
I would tell my child, that the idea of hell is only for the really mean, cruel, bad people who also refuse Jesus' offer of Heaven --and for people who wouldn't believe in Jesus and the the Disciples' accounts of His life, death, and resurrection.
A child may not like the idea that there is a bad consequence for not believing in Christ --at least no Heaven for the unbeliever --but that's not a sensible excuse for refusing the free gift of salvation God offers us through Christ. Should we shake our puny fists heavenward because He made a system of reward and punishment which depends on whether or not we repent for sins and believe in Him and try to follow Him or not?
As for the choice being the child's, children look to parents for truth --and if there is a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun, they certainly would expect to hear about it from us. IF we say it's just a choice they have like a preference, then they will conclude it is not important --or that their parent just doesn't know. Which is better than turning them against faith by being certain in one's atheism.
You can only teach from your own beliefs --either the uncertainty or the certainty. It would seem to be preferable for the atheist to present religion as a choice --rather than insisting to the child there is no Heaven --no God. It's similar to the effect of saying, "There's no Santa --no tooth fairy." EXCEPT, I obviously believe Jesus is not make-believe as those are.
When parents talk to God with their children, they become aware of His abiding Presence, the Holy Spirit, the tangible, "felt presence" of God.
I've been intrigued at how reverent and quiet my 3rd and 4th graders at church become when we pray --and they want to bring up requests for prayer --pray for my grandma cause she's sick --and my uncle;he's got cancer --and my pets --that Grandma will get rid of the cat's fleas --and for my bus driver, my teacher, my Mom's new job --that my dad will get a job. And so on.
And if it doesn't turn out the way we want? I tell them prayer is not like magic --but it is conversation with God -and He does sometimes answer prayers the way we'd like but not always --but He tells us to ask. Jesus said, "You have not because you ask not."
Post a Comment