How Important is Religious Literacy?

As for having one whole specific class on the Bible, I guess it would depend on how it was taught. It’d be good to study the Bible’s impact on Western literature, art, history, socio-economics, etc. but I would be nervous about certain teachers prosyletizing or presenting only one sectarian interpretation of the Bible.

Maybe only atheists should teach the course. 😉

Hemant:

You’re a bit behind the curve on this story, which has been floating around the blogsophere for about two months. But better late than never, and I’d like to respond. Like you, I find nothing inherently objectionable to teaching students about the wide variety of beliefs in the world. You said: It’s not about believing them or accepting them. It’s about knowing them well enough to understand what some other people base their life off of.

This sounds like a commendable idea. But there are two problems. First of all, Prothero — despite his seemingly ecumenical book — has become a spokesperson for public schools offering a course in Biblical literacy, not comparative religion. And, as you astutely point out: I still anticipate it’d be tough to teach a course on the Bible without finding some teachers who use it as an opportunity to proselytize.

Pardon me for linking to my own blog on this one, but I’ve come up with minimal rules to which public schools should adhere when approving such courses. I hope you’ll take the time to read Religious Literacy: And Behold It Ain’t So Good

Maybe only atheists should teach the course. 😉

That might not be a bad idea, except that I’ve known too many teachers who used their position to prosyletize for atheism too.

My wife, for instance, was nearly failed by her atheist high school philosophy teacher simply because she was a Christian. (Though I’m jealous that her high school even had a class in philosophy!)

This is what I have been trying to convince my husband of for quite a while. I’m an atheist, but am fascinated by studying the dark side (believers), while my husband doesn’t care for it all. I figure, at the bare minimum, he should know what those on the either side of the argument believe. If you’re going to do anthing to fight religion, you have to load your weapon. Our arsenals should be filled with as much info about what deists believe as possible.

Dear Friendly Atheist,

I must admit that I found out about this website and read your story on a Yahoo news page. I’m not quite sure if this is where i should be leaving a general comment like this, but I will just proceed anyway (I hope that’s okay!). I’m so sorry if people who you have been around your whole life have given you a negative impression of Christianity, one of blood-thirsty evangelicals looking for the next “lost” soul to reach. Yes, there are people out there like that, but then after reading the bible, like you so firmly suggest, one would have to examine Jesus’ teachings, his actions, and those of his disciples and then ask himself, are these “Christians” really preaching to the world like God intended them to? Or are they merely doing his cause more harm than good? The honest truth is, Jesus taught quietly and gently, through everlasting love and compassion, never telling someone to automatically believe in him or become a Christian, but to merely follow and listen. His disciples, like Mathew and Mark, and Luke and James, never attacked people in the streets with their word or tried to shove it down non-believers’ throats. They knew that the true way, the only way, to reach others was through praise to God and talk about him openly, encouraging others to listen but never banging from door-to-door. It is true that God calls Christians to minister to others, and to try to spread the word of Jesus to as many of his children as we can, but the only way to do so, his only way, is through kindness and love. And if that person doesn’t want to get to know Jesus, it’s not the Christian’s responsibility to heckle them until they do. The best way to lead others to Christ is through example and that is what every Christian should try their hardest to do. After all, no person is perfect, not Christians, not anybody, and the worst thing a Christian can possibly do is to hypocritically preach God’s word, and then go live a life that is dishonorable to God.

“Christians” have a bad reputation these days, as people nosily trying to push Jesus into everyone’s life and convert as many as possible without turning a second to glance at their own life, see how imperfect they are, and bother to fix their own personal problems. How many Christians do you know who say they are firm believers in Christ but gossip, cuss, are mean, disrespectful, haughty, selfish, etc.? Hardly Christ-like rolemodels. It’s impossible to be perfect, but a Christian should always be tryign to be a better person so as to truly live out their faith in actions/ deeds, not just words. Words truly mean nothing because a “faith without deeds is dead” (the book of James clearly states this). God doesn’t expect people to be perfect, he knows there’s no hope of that, :). That’s why he sent his son Jesus to die for us and save us through the blood and love of his sacrifice. I don’t know about you, but how many other religions have you heard of where the God is willing to lay down his life for his followers (for most religions it’s the other way around)?

And anyway, I also understand what you mean about Churches turning you off. That’s what happened where I used to attend church. Everyone just has to find a church that’s right for them; but, to honestly tell the truth, I think so many churches are losing members and dying off because they’ve lost sight of God’s goal for them. Instead of trying to reach out, they’re trying to keep and cater to their present congregation, with the mentality of “if they want to know Christ they’ll come to us.” How unappealing! Churches aren’t supposed to be there to keep a congregation, they’re supposed to be there to reach out to others. Churches that are so hyped up on tradition and ritual are dead to me, because they’re stuck in the religion of Christianity, not the relationship….that’s what it’s about afterall, a relationship, very informal, but very loving with a God who truly cares about us and wants us to be happy and thrive. My new church is AMAZING! It’s called Buckhead Church, in Atlanta and is a branch of NorthPoint Ministries with Andy Stanley as our pastor. Nothing is traditional about our church, that’s not its goal. its goal is to reach as many unchurched people as possible. The music is awesome (they have smoke screen, lazor lighting, electric guitars…you feel like you’re at a concert, for heaven’s sake!) and the sermons are always so powerful and soooo relevant, very meaningful. You actually feel like you leave having learned something. And the speaker/pastor is hilarious! There isn’t communion or incense, but I have ot tell you. The last building the church was in was able to fit 500 people and they were so packed that they had to go to five services and even then….so their new building has 3 services and 3,000 seats…it’s awesome and I have to also say that EVERY and I mean every seat was full today at my service.

Wow, this is a very long comment, and I’m really sorry (I know the length is probably veyr annoying!) but I just wanted to conclude by saying that if you would like to experience a new kind of church, check out mine at buckheadchurch.org and try out one of the sermons they have posted there….I promise, you won’t be disappointed! Thank you and God bless you!

P.S. Did I mention that a huge proportion of our congregation isn’t even Christian….? They’re just there to learn more about it.

Congratulations Friendly Atheist, I find your honesty and much of your rationale very embracing, especially from a Catholic point of view.

I can understand your bemusement in being invited to attend bible school, after all, what would you learn? You would be force-fed mostly incorrect interpretations of scriptures that are simply another human’s opinion.

As a Catholic, we attract more criticism and contempt from the other so-called “christian” groups than we do from fair minded atheists. At latest count there are well over 30,000 “christian” denominations – each of all profess to be right. Come On! You have to be joking. All of these “christian” groups are the product of junk christianity and mostly all formed from one type or another of dissent or disagreement. While the simple souls that belong to these groups believe that they are doing the right thing, with their plastic exterior happiness, they really labour in vain. Whilst they engage in a great deal of “Catholic Bashing” they continue to worship and profess to live by the Holy Bible that was compiled by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century. If the Holy Bible is the only way to learn faith, then obviously the Christians [Catholics] of the first 300 plus years were very sadly misled, and will never attain their dream and objective of entering Heaven.

Faith is a gift from God that needs to be nurtured and fed through the Sacraments of the Church – not by the opinionated and distorted teachings of any Pastor Tom, Dick or Harry.
The view that the same God is the God of all faiths is completely incorrect. My God was the Creator and Father of us all who, through His Son Jesus and the early Church taught every man that there is only one way to salvation and that is through His One and only Church on Earth – The Catholic Church. Any person who professes to be a christian and can’t see this is simply ignoring the facts, normally by a family-fed bias or a belief of complete lies. A simple study of history will satisfy the most inquisitive mind.

To be sure, I for one won’t be asking you to attend any bible school, asking you to “accept” Jesus or attempt to fill your head regarding rapture rubbish. As a Catholic, we should let our behaviour in all facets of life set the example, and pray that you keep an open mind to any gifts that God may bestow upon you.

Thank You for providing an open and honest forum, together with very informative insights.

Hey man I won’t lie I just found out about your website on yahoo. I really like what you write here in this blog. I would love to talk to you about your beliefs sometime in an attempt to further understand what it is you believe. I am a Christian and I know as Christians we catch a lot of flack for being the people who are belligerent in our beliefs, yet I can’t have a conversation with an atheist without them screaming at me that I’m dead wrong. Thanks for your peaceful insights, as much as it may pain you to hear it, I’m sure Jesus would be proud.

Hey there. I, too, just read about your blog on Yahoo. While religious literacy is important, I don’t see why it can’t be incorporated into the existing curriculum. For example, when I was in high school, each student was required to take a year of “Eastern Cultures” and a year of “Western Cultures” to fulfill the social studies requirement. My Eastern Cultures class was where I first learned about Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, all in the context of the cultures we were learning about at that time. Of course, we didn’t have time to discuss the religious aspects in detail, but we learned the basics; I remember learning about the 5 pillars of Islam in that class. I don’t see why people aren’t discussing comparative religion education in the scope of a social studies class; that’s how my school did it for years, and it seems an elegant and relevant solution.

Getting to the subject at hand is difficult with all the tempting comments that have been made thus far.

Lian, you said

Secularism is very close to being a kind of informal religion in itself and atheism – while not a religion – is certainly a faith.

Atheism is certainly NOT a faith. I’m sick of hearing this silliness, especially from those who want to somehow put atheism on a parity with religion so as to level the polemical playing field. You are definitively in need of non-religious literacy.

Sara, I’m going to have to cut all the sugar out of my diet for at least a week.

Scott, you can’t be serious. Don’t the infinite varieties of religion ever lead you to wonder whether they all have the same origin—all the products of human imagination?

Angelo said,

Impartiality and knowledge are unequal to wisdom.

Says who?

It seems the increasing notoriety of this blog is attracting a host of wide-eyed true-believers who want nothing more than to share their predictable and interchangeable conversion stories. I hate to see a good thing go bad.

Now, to the point. I’m for literacy, period. Next to that, what we need most desperately is Constitutional literacy. We can survive without religious literacy, but not without the others. How about Science literacy? Case in point:
I just saw an episode of “Hannity’s America” (a haunting idea) where his ‘guest’ was Chris Hitchens. Sean was making his pathetic case for God’s existence and Hitch said something to the effect of “you seem not to have studied the subjects that you are dismissing.” Needless to say, Hitch made him look utterly foolish without trying. After the segment was over, as he was going to a commercial break, Hannity’s final demolishing, evidential blow was this: “God does exist.”

I am always in favor of humans learning more about their world, and I am inclined to think that the more people know about all religions, the less likely they will be to believe in any of them. You will hardly find a group more ignorant of Christianity than Christians themselves. Some of them seem to know more about other faiths than their own. I consider knowing the Bible a part of a sound education. A religion as central to the rise of Western culture as Christianity must be studied.

The above message by Darryl is certainly an example of a “non-friendly” atheist posting on this blog, lol. Honestly his comment itself can be held as an example of how atheism itself is definately a faith, and how atheists can be just as “fanatic” about their denial of God’s existence as religious people are vehement about the existence of their gods. After all, isn’t he just as dismissive towards those who believe as those who he charges are dismissive towards those who do not believe?

I am a Muslim from the East, and I also happened to find this log via Yahoo’s article about Atheists and Christians getting together to debate. In my view, Christianity is definately central to all what goes on in the West regarding religion. Those who believe are most likely to be Christians, while those who do not believe do so also because of Christianity, and there is very few study of other religions, not only fellow Abrahamic ones such as Judaism and Islam, but also and especially Dharmic ones such as Hinduism and Buddhism and the like. Atheists in the West still inherit the zeal to prosyletise from their believing forefathers. As such I would support the idea that everyone should know the basics of all religions. I also agree that Atheists themselves may be biased and might not be in a good position to teach the subject, so perhaps the closest one can come to neutrality would be to have the syllibus for such a subject determined by a council consisting of representatives from all faiths taught.

To Friendly Atheist, I have read what it would take for you to embrace religion on Yahoo’s article, and as my own response would like to suggest you obtain and read this book titled “The Bible, the Quran and Science” by one Maurice Bucaille, a Frenchman. That book, in my opinion, would provide some scientific analysis and comparisions to start with. You may or may not agree with its observations and conclusions, that’s up to you, but that’s just my suggestion.

Hi Lian, I agree with your remarks about the subjectivity of education in general, but perhaps some sort of ground rules or standardization of the material could minimize the biases and could also add some accountability for seeing to it the teachers don’t get too far into their own views. The details will be hard to agree on, I expect.

I’m not actually convinced this whole idea is a good one; I’m just trying to find some ways to minimize the problems it might cause. Also there will be church/state separation issues. The one course for the Bible and the one course for all the rest of the faiths is an obvious bias, for instance. People in different communities will say that their non Christian faith got short shrift.

Something you said puzzled me:

Secularism is very close to being a kind of informal religion in itself and atheism – while not a religion – is certainly a faith.

I don’t understand your rationale for the first half of your statement because it’s one I have never heard before. Perhaps you could help me see why you think “secularism is close to being a kind of informal religion in itself.”

The second half of your statement is however very familiar, and I think is based on a very common misconception about most atheists. The most standard general definition of atheism is, “a lack of belief in gods.” Most people who make assumptions like yours are using a very narrow and generally incorrect definition of atheism. It’s a definition that is often used by people who really dislike atheists, and sadly they spread it around. That may be where you heard it. They say atheism is “a belief that there is no god.” There are very few atheists who actively hold a belief that there is no god. The majority of atheists simply do not hold a belief in any gods. These two kinds are sometimes referred to respectively, as “strong atheists” and “weak atheists.” I really dislike those terms because it confuses people into thinking it’s a distinction between their conviction or their commitment. No, it’s about the presence or absence of a belief. By those terms I’m technically a “weak” atheist, but I hold my views by very strong adherence to personal principles.

Anyway this may seem a subtle distinction at first but it is actually very different and very important. Not believing in something does not require believing in the opposite. For most atheists the statement that atheism is a faith is absurd. For them that is like saying a vacuum is an atmosphere, or an empty wallet is full of non-money. Decaffeinated coffee is lacking caffeine. It doesn’t have “anti-caffeine” added. Given a proposal that cannot be empirically confirmed or refuted it may take a kind of faith to believe that something does not exist, (strong) but it does not take any faith to merely abstain from belief in that thing. (weak)

I hope that clarifies things, and I apologize if you already understood this stuff. I simply try to help dispel misunderstandings between people.

Hi Alistaire,
Please don’t mistake exasperation for unfriendliness, or conviction for fanaticism. We all have our personalities, and how we respond to things can change from day to day. I’m in a gentle mood tonight, but at times I can be a sarcastic jerk. Darryl is a very smart, articulate and insightful person who can be superb at explaining complex ideas. We all get our last straws some times.

I expect that as a Muslim from the East you have encountered annoyingly common misconceptions from westerners about your faith. I also expect that as a human being some times you’re patient with them and at other times you just want to scream.

Wanting to understand Islam I would go to an Islamic teacher or author. Wanting to understand Christianity I would go to a Christian teacher or author. I would not tell the teachers about their faith, I would ask them. They may be impatient with me on Tuesday but more patient with me on Wednesday; I just have to accept their humanity as they have to accept mine, and keep striving for understanding.

If you want to understand atheism, don’t tell atheists about it, ask them about it. You’ll meet some real grouches and some real sweethearts, and mostly you’ll meet people who go up and down in their moods. I spend a lot of time talking with the more rabid, always-pissed-off atheists I encounter trying to appeal to their gentle, patient natures. As an atheist they may be more inclined to listen to me. I also ask my Christian friends to do the same with their more angry, atheist-loathing fellow Christians. With you, this kind of reciprocal understanding and peace making could be shared with the Muslim community.

Please take it from an atheist, atheism really is not a faith. For most of those who would call themselves atheists they just do not busy themselves with belief. There are people who are very involved and people who are hardly involved. People who argue their points of view with fervor and those who don’t care about it enough to talk about it at all.

There are fanatics about soccer but that does not make it a religion.

Please stick around. We seldom have a chance to exchange understanding with Muslim people.

Those who believe are most likely to be Christians, while those who do not believe do so also because of Christianity, and there is very few study of other religions, not only fellow Abrahamic ones such as Judaism and Islam, but also and especially Dharmic ones such as Hinduism and Buddhism and the like.

Alistaire, in my case this is not quite true. I have looked over Islam/Muslim, even talk with some Sunni (Sunnis? What’s the plural?) about it and came to the conclusion that it is no better than Christianity. It’s best that I not say why because I don’t want to start another religious battle. The thing is, no religion is better than any other IMO. They are all the same, esp with the believe in the supernatural. Not to mention the extremists of any religion are just as bad. The oppression, control, discrimination, prejudice, etc of others is no better or worse, but it is still there, regardless of the religion. There is no reason for it either. I’d say this about Hinduism too and a lot of “Untouchables”/”Outcastes” became Muslim to get out of the caste system.

I am non-religious, not because of Christianity, but because of religion in general. I do have three questions though, and I hope this does not sound mocking or bad. I don’t mean it that way, but if men get 72 virgins in heaven, what do women get? Where do all these virgins come from? If from God, where does God them? Of course, your answers may lead to more questions and you may laugh at some of them.

You are all shooting the messenger, according to the Bible there is no distinction between atheists and satanists.

This is a little discriminating, don’t you think, Dan? Have you ever notice that some religions have various texts used to control people and keep them in the religion? Islam has similar ones, although Alistaire might beg to differ, but they are there. I don’t have a Qu’ran to point them out, but get a copy and you will see them. It’s all the same when you get right down to it. Just as you believe atheists are santanic, non-Muslims are supposedly going to hell. Humm… Sounds like everyone who is not Muslim is in the same boat. It’s all insanity, IMHO. I really do not believe any religion has a corner on being right.

That is why we don’t rape children, because it is wrong to us in our hearts. The atheist experience people tried to explain it was because society said it was wrong and that was it. Isn’t that absurd to you?

No it’s not, but it is more than that. It is years of knowledge as to what happens to a child psychologically when this happens. It is abuse and can bring on psychological symptoms much like Holocaust victims. Incest itself, brings about genetic traits that are not good for survival, esp when society was primitive. Of course, without the education or understanding, people blamed what they did not understand on a supernatural being. In some cases, superstition was so bad, people were killed for the results of such things. Not a good thing, thus why we need scientific literacy. Therefore, it is not just in our hearts, but due to scientific knowledge, it is in our heads too as to why it’s wrong.

Now here’s where I sound bias on my part, but IF Jesus were alive today, he’d be a Humanist, esp after he observed all the behaviours of the various religious extremists groups. Hey, you all have your biases about religion and I have mine, except Humanism is not a religion. Still, I find it good.

I have told the atheist experience people many times as they were slandering me to never take my word for it that they could look it up themselves in the Bible, to do the research. I pointed out the verses that I was addressing and giving an adequate debate. What was the response?

Dan,

Most of us have read the bible and have dismissed it as a holy book. Telling us to us the bible as a research tool is the same to us as using the Da Vinci Code or The Lorax as a history resource. If you want to use it, feel free but citing it to non believers is a waste of time.

We honestly don’t believe. We aren’t lying to ourselves, or to you. We aren’t rebelling against priests or pastors, we don’t feel something missing in our heart, we don’t love satan and/or hate god. We have taken time to think and study the issues and have not found any good reason to believe god exists. We honestly don’t believe. Once you accept this fact, we can begin a civil conversation, but when you come at us like you did in your post you are bound to get angry responses.

Nice to hear fom you Vincent.

Please don’t “hit and run”.

Can you provide details of what you and your Professor believe is/was “wrong”?

Perhaps you should re-visit Ancient History and Apostolic Succession,
after all, this is when The Church was founded.

I never said my professor said anything was wrong.
I merely quoted him to emphasize how much of my education involved studying changes in the church.

This is not really the place to discuss the changes that took place in the Catholic Church over the centuries. They are vast, and range from little things like the significance of the kneeling, standing and sitting during mass, the reasons for excluding “for thine is the kingdom, the power…” from the Lord’s Prayer for centuries, to big issues like papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of Mary.

We honestly don’t believe. We aren’t lying to ourselves, or to you. We aren’t rebelling against priests or pastors, we don’t feel something missing in our heart, we don’t love satan and/or hate god. We have taken time to think and study the issues and have not found any good reason to believe god exists. We honestly don’t believe. Once you accept this fact, we can begin a civil conversation, but when you come at us like you did in your post you are bound to get angry responses.

Yeah. Precisely what he said, Dan. I have no concept of the deity you speak of, which is why non-theism is often mistaken for atheism sometimes. What is in the Bible I’ve researched throroughly, still researching it, and have come to the conclusion it is just more myth that evolved from Mithra, Horus, Krisha, and other forms of mythology. The god you speak of is no more real to me than the Easter Bunny or Zeus is. In that respect, I am an atheist, because I have no concept of what you speak of, probably no more than you do of what I speak of. In my case, it is natural concerning emotions and our feelings towards others, animals, the planet, and the universe, as well as our relationship in it and your is supernatural. It is completely and totally two different concepts. Of course one could say my concept is not a god, but how I feel about love, compassion, and reason is what makes the difference. It is probably just a strong as what you feel toward your anthropomorphic god (or however you view it), BUT it is the trigger that stimulates chemicals in the brain to give us such feelings. Since we are individuals, different things trigger that feeling and our definition of that feeling varies.

It goes right back to God being a human concept. Theism and God are not the same thing. Theism is just one definition of God. So, what it boils down to, is what one’s concept of God is- be it… well… non-existant, or in us, in everything, and all around like love, reason, and compassion is, or some strange supernatural anthropomorphic being, it is all a human concept. If you have no clue as to what a Snuffleupagus is, would you believe it was real?

I took a comparitive religions course in College.

It was one of many choices that fulfilled a multiculturalism requirement. Most people I know who went to college took a similar course.

Remind me again why this needs to be a high-school course.

That said, I think we need to put religious learning and prayer right back into public school. I think it’d be the best thing ever for atheism, as it would immediately make Jesus the most uncool thing ever for kids.

Ooo, I have an idea, how about a critical thinking course, or philosophy, be mandatory in high schools. I do like to see when people have reasoned for themselves, whether they are believers or not.

Not everyone gets to go to college

So why don’t we just drop every college course down and teach it in high school?

The upshot is, there’s a reason to cover it in college and it has to do with the atmosphere of a college education.

High school still treats the students like children, whereas college treats students like adults. Teaching an adult class in high school… especially something like religious literacy is recipe for endless…. and I mean ENDLESS curriculum political pta, parent battles… during which time every parent with any faith-based belief tears up every other one.

Folks predicting that eventually religions will devour each other might sit back and enjoy the show.

But the fight would be pretty ugly.

I wouldn’t want to be a Jewish parent in the South with kids in school there.

Every kid not in the majority religion would be tempted to leave public school and go to a religious private school in that case. One more step toward the Madrassah-ization of American education.

Miller’s right on target. It wasn’t until college that I really learned what went on in History.

I agree Religious Literacy is important, it’s much harder to accept one religious text at face value when you see all the other guys say much the same thing (like if you don’t believe the holy words in this book you’re going to hell.)

I am an angry atheist, because most of my life I was a unquestioning religious person. Much like Julia Sweeney’s tale, it wasn’t until I got “serious” about my religion that I found out what a sham it all is. That’s my de-conversion story. Like any victim of a con, I’m angry at myself for being conned and angry at those would perpetuate the con on others.

I envy those more mature indivuduals, like Hement, who are able to calmly and rationally explain their views and engage those who disagree with him. Perhaps if I had had a better education earlier on (critical thinking, science, philosophy and religion, etc) I’d have had no need to be so angry now.

Mriana, between my posts to Lian and Alistaire above. You’re just feeding a troll, IMHO. Holding your own isn’t the point. Unless you’re into masochism it’s futile. He doesn’t actually hear you. Whatever. I’ll just scroll past both his nonsense and your responses to his nonsense.

Hemant,

Strangely (maybe not so strangely), I also did a story about this very topic. There is a professor at Harvard (Harry Lewis) who advocates the study of religion in schools.

I do agree with him: Religion is such an important part of our world and it is our ignorance that seems to cause a lot of trouble.

Harry has some very persuasive points and some great ideas as to why many people, especially Christians, have shied away from this idea. Here’s a link if you are at all interested: http://www.fortjay.com/Alyce/Alyce_Mar_4_2007_Religion1.mp3

I’ve been enjoying your blog!
Alyce

From what I have seen in the media recently, religion has become a hot topic. If this reflects what is being discussed among average people here in the U.S. and elsewhere, there must be reasons for it. 9-11, the war in Iraq, and the whole matter of Islamic radicalism have all highlighted the general ignorance of Americans about the Muslim faith(s) and sent many running to the library or bookstore. The political successes of the Religious Right in this country and the upcoming Presidential election certainly puts religion on the front burner. Look at all the books that have been written lately on the topic of religion, pro and con. I think I see developing what may be called a ‘push-back’ to the Religious Right that I think accounts for some of the recent books by atheists and the interest in blogs like this one.

Americans are great forgetters: Our optimism keeps us looking forward to a different and better future; unfortunately, we often ignore the lessons of the past. It seems that we deal with big problems only when they get so bad that they can no longer be ignored. This may be a natural result of our form of government and society as well as our ‘national character.’ Religion is a powerful force for good in the right circumstances, as our history shows; it is also a very destructive force in other circumstances. Perhaps not since the founding of our nation have we been forced by circumstances to have a national if not global conversation about religion. The time has come. We’ve got a problem that we’ve been sweeping under the rug. That luxury is no longer available to us. We must, I think, all come to some terms under which we can live together, or else we are in deep trouble.

Religious literacy is lacking in our country because it has not been seen as vital to an education. We may have been a victim of our own successes. Relative peace and prosperity have permitted us to ignore certain festering sores on the body politic. In the nation’s classrooms we have overemphasized some subjects and downplayed others. So much emphasis upon subjects geared toward material pursuits to the slighting of the humanities has left a vacuum in our national life that religion has been more than happy to fill. So long as church and state have remained separate (as they have in large part in the last century), public education could afford to overlook religion and its education—this was left to the churches and seminaries. It’s obvious to all that this situation no longer holds. We are, in my opinion, threatened both from without and within by radical religion. Such religion has infected our politics and poisoned our civic discourse.

I have recently noticed many comments on this blog that seem to indicate that the commentors do not even hear what others are saying—not to really interact—but seem to only try to proselytize. To have a national discourse, and perhaps a global discourse, do we not have to begin by identifying those things upon which we all agree? I can tell that there are many good and sincere people that comment on this blog who hold quite divergent opinions. It must be possible to come to some terms. We have a lot in common with each other.

Having done this, do we not then have to agree upon our definitions, our language, and the rules of argument and evidence? Short of this, the result of our many conversations is that we have succeeded only in scoring points and talking past one another. We ought to ask ourselves what we have come to this blog to do. What is our purpose? Perhaps we ought to do a self-check:

As we blog are we thinking more about listening, understanding, and learning, or about winning an argument? Some of our bloggers are exceptional at this (among whom I do not count myself).

Is it our purpose to try to convert others to our opinions?

Are we utterly honest with ourselves about whatever inner doubts and conflicts are raised when we listen to the opinions of others?

Can we admit the possibility that we can err?

Can we concede the possibility that there may be some vital knowledge that we do not possess, and that others with whom we converse might know?

Are we angry, desperate, restless, vengeful, anxious, fearful?

Do we hate, despise, mistrust, villify, denigrate?

Do we think that if we do not insist upon our opinions we are in peril?

Are we upset by this kind of discourse?

Are we obsessed by what we think about?

Do we believe that discourse is possible?

Do we value each other as equals?

Speaking to the original post (how on earth do you all read/write so quickly?), it’s worth noting that Daniel Dennett (author of the recent atheist’s-investigation-of-religionBreaking the Spell) advocates this same thing. Indeed, he speaks of standardized testing in an effort to ensure that anyone with a high school diploma (including those private- and home-schooled) be able to demonstrate basic knowledge of the fundamental beliefs, origins, histories, practices, rituals, and taboos, of the world’s major religions. When I heard him present this idea at a talk last year (my review of the talk) I thought it ironic that this was the main social change that this atheist was advocating. But, I love the idea, and I’ve become a fast advocate for it myself.

Re: Darryl’s cute plea for tolerance and understanding in discussion with fascist theocrats:

No, they don’t deserve kindness or the benefit of the doubt. That’s something you have to earn, and for the past thirty years, they’ve consistently shown that kindness and civility on our part will be rewarded only with bile, fabrications, and backstabbing, without exception.

People won’t see you being calm and considerate in the face of crazy bugfuck rabidity; they just see you getting utterly demolished by ‘their team’.

I understand the Kumbayah impulse. But we have decades of evidence that no, it doesn’t work.

stogoe said,

Re: Darryl’s cute plea for tolerance and understanding in discussion with fascist theocrats:

No, they don’t deserve kindness or the benefit of the doubt. That’s something you have to earn, and for the past thirty years, they’ve consistently shown that kindness and civility on our part will be rewarded only with bile, fabrications, and backstabbing, without exception.

People won’t see you being calm and considerate in the face of crazy bugfuck rabidity; they just see you getting utterly demolished by ‘their team’.

I understand the Kumbayah impulse. But we have decades of evidence that no, it doesn’t work.

I think we need to check our impulses towards cynicism about these matters. If attempting to converse with the willing rather than alienating them by indiscriminate pugnacity strikes you as “cute,” perhaps you are more pessimistic than I.

I cut no slack whatsoever to the belligerent and dogmatic. Anyone who has read my previous comments on this blog can attest to that. I am keenly aware of the hypocritical hyper-nastiness of these folks. As the great Struther Martin said in the film “Cool Hand Luke:” “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach, . . .” I can’t improve upon that.

As an aside: can we all agree that the “kumbayah” cliche is so tired and outdated that we should exert ourselves a wee bit more and come up with at least a more interesting way to be dismissive?