Showing Compassion to All But Non-Christians…

Comment by: Mike O

I’ve been to a lot of churches and I’ve never heard that taught. Granted, Christians may treat you as lost or misguided or worse, dangerous. But no Christian church teaches that we should hate anybody.

Comment by: Laura M.

Oh yeah, and they taught that God hates sinners (the unrepentant), so Christians should too.

Comment by: Tim

Well, I have not really been taught either side of this by my church. It is sort of a non-issue there. We have bigger things to think about than “are Atheists moral or not.”

But, as I cannot speak for my congregation, I will tell you what I feel and what the impression is from other members in my church. Because every human is made in God’s image, every human has the ability to make correct, wise, and moral choices. Are atheists human? Some would argue no. But I would have to venture out on a limb and say a definite “YES!”

In fact, I would say the opposite of many Christians, unfortunately. There are many churches with very little moral values in them. It’s a sad story, but as our friend Marion has shown us, it seems that those who point the fingers (Christians) are the ones doing the deed themselves.

Comment by: Mike O

Sure, this example is of a Christian and an atheist. But I suspect this happens between any two groups who have oposing views. Heck, I even have on video (an interview) a guy saying “Christians are trouble.” Even your figureheads Dawkins, Harris, etc. are “against” religion.

Look at football rivalries - Vikes hate the Packers and Bears. Packers hate the bears and Vikes. Bears hate the Packers and Vikes. It’s based on nothing other than the fact that they are associated with an “opposing team.” Same thing here.

And for what it’s worth, Marion, people who believe in God do commit inhumane acts against animals. Just because someone believes in God doesn’t make them “good.”

Comment by: Siamang

Unless Marion English is the publisher of the newspaper, we have a conspiracy of at least two here. One person wrote this, and another person thought “this is acceptable discourse in a public paper.”

These ideas are indeed widespread. Creationists often dredge up the “Darwin killed a puppy” story. Last year there was the op-ed where someone said that atheists should murder people because there’s no God to stop them.

We just had this article in the Washington Post which also said we had no guide to keep us from doing whatever we want.

And in every school science curriculum fight in the nation, every single anti-science group argues that teaching evolution is teaching an atheistic worldview that abandons morality. “If we’re all just monkeys, we should do whatever we want.” They bastardize “survival of the fittest” to mean “kill the weak.”

This is ABSOUTELY taught in church and in Jesus Camps and in Christian-centered and Christian-authored textbook homeschools across the nation.

Comment by: Stephan

Siamang, exactly how far up your butt did your undies get on this one? I’m afraid there may be no hope of ever extricating them.

I’m sure there is more than one person who holds these beliefs, but I think it is far from wide-spread, and you won’t dispel it by going ballistic. The newspaper may not be in on the “conspiracy” so much as they are trying to sell newspapers, and outrageousness sells, whether or not the discourse is acceptable. Sometimes newspaper publish stupid letters just to show how stupid they are.

I hope you can find something better to occupy your time today than what Marion English thinks about the basis of your morality and your treatment of kittens.

Comment by: Stephan

The other option, rather than fighting, would be to ignore the lunatic fringe and constructively engage the mainstream. You are not going to convince Marion that you are a decent moral person, but you have convinced me of that. Fighting will only make you look like an angry radical, which is exactly they way people like Marion see you in the first place. How does that help?

Comment by: Karen

I was definitely taught in church that atheists are bad people. We certainly were not told to “hate” them (Christians are supposed to eschew hate) but definitely to pity and fear them.

In the conservative teaching I got, atheists were people who deliberately rejected god (though they knew in their hearts he existed) because they were motivated by anger, selfishness, hedonism, rebellion, foolishness and other wicked things.

It’s not a big leap to hear that atheists are wicked, dangerous people and then find that you hate them, despite your best efforts to feel sorry for them. Even if you’re told NOT to hate, when that kind of teaching permeates your world view, it becomes common to assume atheists would do terrible things like abuse animals, hurt people and encourage any kind of immoral behavior.

We hear it all the time: If you’re an atheist you have no basis for morality. That’s the number one practical argument believers bring up. I don’t think it’s a fringe element, at least not in conservative Christianity.

Comment by: Siamang

I think there’s a bigger issue at stake here, and I think it’s pluralism. For awhile, religions in America, for the benefit of pluralism, have learned to get along with people of different religions. I think often people talk about “different ways of worshiping the same God, be he called Yaweh, Jehova, Allah, etc…”

Which works GREAT, if everyone’s a theist of some sort, or if the atheists are relatively silent and invisible.

But now, atheists start speaking up, and all of this theological structure that has been built around pluralism just does not accept non-religious points of view. We don’t get that free pass of being able to say “hey! Don’t be rude to people with different beliefs!”

Christianity has got a lot of theological structure that’s built on the notion that people are broken without Christ, that they’re lost or whatever, and Church has the cure.

Is that irreconcilable with the notion of pluralism? Perhaps it is. Perhaps pluralism and religious tenents are at base incompatible.

I think this is central to Off The Map’s work, is this idea that Christianity needs to get away from the “I haven’t even talked to you before, but I know you’re Lost” attitude. Sometimes it feels like in order to build Christianity up, they’ve got to run other people down.

Comment by: Matt Casper

When I speak with Christians, I often tell them this anecdote: while at dinner with some bible believing friends of the family, I mentioned the book and that I’m an atheist.

They looked at me like I’d just sacrificed a goat, and said “You don’t believe in Jesus?!?!”

I said, “Sure, I believe in Jesus. I believe he lived and was, by all accounts, one of the kindest, smartest, and most forward thinking men who ever lived. I just don’t believe he was a supernatural god with miraculous powers because I don’t believe there are such things.”

A little humor with a little frankness goes a lot farther than outrage and taking offense.

Like it or not, “atheism” is a dirty word for most Americans, and that’s not going to change overnight. Nor will it change by getting offended and “taking people to task.”

When people are shocked by my atheism, I think about a way to make them feel better about me and atheism. And when I am looking for a gentle way to explain things to people that fall outside their standard worldview, I think, “What would Jesus do…? How would someone as balanced and straight talking as Jesus explain this issue…?”

Comment by: Bill Cecchini

Siamang,

How come nobody has said something as simple as, “Man, that’s one ignorant person,” as it certainly was.

It’s sad, as I’m sure Atheists can attest to, when a small minority speaks loud enough to represent the entire group. I know I wouldn’t say anything as ignorant as that!

Where did you pick up your attitude toward atheists? Was it your church? Does your church teach you to hate, distrust and impugn the morality of atheists?

Maybe Marion is just a sour person. Maybe he was drunk when he wrote that. Maybe he has been hurt by an Atheist. Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Concerning your response. Don’t you think that questions like you asked are just as poisoning as the “are you an Atheist” author asked? So quick to judge. Jumping to conclusions. Letting your distaste for those whose opinions differ rear its ugly head.

I hope you know that I have a tremendous respect for you AND I appreciate all you contribute to my site.

Comment by: Laura M.

Siamang is absolutely right on this. We are seeing an amazing lack of empathy about this from those who are supposed to love others as they love themselves.

Siamang’s response isn’t nearly as angry as the letter writer’s comments, but doesn’t it strike anyone here as odd that Siamang is being criticized more than this Christian?

As far as Siamang overreacting or being

So quick to judge. Jumping to conclusions. Letting your distaste for those whose opinions differ rear its ugly head.

The only slight issue I have with what he said is the comment that ‘churches teach this kind of hate’, and not clarifying that only some churches, not all, teach this.

Imagine, if you will, if Siamang’s letter of response to this person , rather than asking:

I have a question for you, Mr. English: Where did you pick up your attitude toward atheists? Was it your church? Does your church teach you to hate, distrust and impugn the morality of atheists? If not, where did you learn this? Who taught you the lie that only a godless atheist would kill kittens out of spite or a lack of empathy? Is this how you treat people with different beliefs from you? Is this the standard of Christian behavior, to accuse innocents of crimes merely because they have different beliefs?

Instead claimed:

I know this is how Christians treat people with different beliefs from them. This is the standard of Christian behavior, to accuse innocents of crimes merely because they have different beliefs.

Would your reactions be any different? I doubt it because it seems as if the response is as if he did say and mean these words.

Now we know that Siamang doesn’t think that this is ‘the standard of Christian behavior’, that all or most Christians think and behave this way. His questions were a rhetorical technique of turning Marion English’s questions on their head to provide Christians the opportunity to empathize with an atheists’ reactions to English’s letter.

Yet Christians reponding here are ignoring this obvious fact and reacting as though they think Siamang actually believes what the questions imply. They can’t get past their apparant defensive reactions towards Siamang’s words in his mock letter to grasp that the very anxious/fearful reaction they had should be multiplied tenfold in order to understand the effect these types of situations have on atheists.

We are the minority. There are 9 or 10 times as many of you as there are of us. The fact that the majority doesn’t agree with these comments by bigots is irrelevent when they ignore them rather than speak out forcefully and reasonably against them and attempt to engage bigots in discussion about these issues.

Comment by: Laura M.

Stephan, Siamang has made it obvious that he was hoping for some empathy. If you don’t feel any empathy, why not simply state that?

If you disagree with his opinions that’s fine, but why do you do so it such a heated way? I find a rational, intellectual approach to debate is best. Along the lines of statements like “I disagree strenuously” or “I don’t think that’s logical or reasonable”.

In Siamang’s case, once a person has a major emotional investment in the outcome of a conflict, one might reasonably expect them to become a bit aroused when an issue is brought up. In your case, I have no idea where all this emotion is coming from.

IMO, it is your reactions that seem to be a bit out of perspective here. Is it necessary to persist in using loaded or irate language like:

Siamang, exactly how far up your butt did your undies get on this one? I’m afraid there may be no hope of ever extricating them.

it is far from wide-spread, and you won’t dispel it by going ballistic.

The newspaper may not be in on the “conspiracy” so much as they are trying to sell newspapers

hope you can find something better to occupy your time today than what Marion English thinks

Fighting will only make you look like an angry radical

Marion English isn’t here. I could rant all day about how wrong he is, but it won’t make a difference

But I know Siamang (in a weird WWW sort of way). His attitude about this seems way out of perspective. Maybe he’s got something else going on that I don’t know about. It seems like he takes things written 4 states away as personal threats.

You might want to consider looking into the meaning of the psychological term ‘projection’.

Comment by: Laura M.

Ce la vie, LOL.

Comment by: Bill Cecchini

Siamang,

Being wet behind the ears in the realm of Christianity/Atheism conversation, I just wanted to make sure I didn’t step on your toes. I’ll say it again, I have tremendous respect for you. I’m learning a lot from you.

Comment by: Siamang

No prob, Bill… and others on this thread. I appreciate everyone’s concern about me.

I think it’s okay to get peeved sometimes and write something that shows you’re peeved.

I mean, reality check… this IS the internet after all!

Comment by: Siamang

No, I didn’t.

I’d rather that if someone responded, it would be a local, rather than an internet atheist from California.

Comment by: nerdiah

I wonder if our righteous kitten saviour ever thinks twice about eating non-free-range hens.