Written in response to a fellow Canadian on Reasonable Faith.org on the issue of keeping prayer in public meetings in our country.

Jeff, thanks for explaining. Given that you argue so strongly for Christianity, I will assume for this post that you are of European descent. Now let me explain from another perspective. You suggest that Christian prayer is so loving and kind and inoffensive. Let's look at the Lord's Prayer:



As you are aware, Jeff, a goodly portion of our Canadian population is Aboriginal. You suggest that tradition is to be valued very highly. Hopefully, you extend this right to the Peoples who tended this great land of ours millenia before "we" were here. I understand that for them, "Father in Heaven" is a seriously alien concept. So is monotheism. However, their grandfathers and ancestors were loving and caring, at least as much so as the "Father in heaven."

I did quite a bit of reading and study on this when I was seeking answers for myself; I took courses and also wrote a paper or two. I lived on two different Indian Reserves one summer and had really deep conversations with the people. Things that Europeans out-lawed two centuries ago only went underground. Some of these people may have totally "Westernized" but definitely not all of them. (Very ironic that the peoples of these western continents have to "westernize" but oh well, it's all a matter of terminology.) Stuff that survives despite overt persecution of this magnitude is real, Jeff. You gotta believe it.

Like I said, the "Father in heaven" is not part of traditional North American religion. Nor was he very compassionate for the peoples on whom he was imposed--most often at gun-point in North and South America and by the edge of the sword in Europe.

The people who do the imposing obviously think otherwise. Evangelicals are notorious for imposing their religion so for you not to think your "Father in heaven" is compassionate would simply be inconsistent with your goals.

You imply that your prayer would not hurt feelings. That's quite a presumption. Or possibly you honestly don't know better. Seems I remember you said in a post somewhere that you have been in Christian schools all your life. You take offense at the suggestion that religion is a throw-back to the Dark Ages. I take offense at your suggestion that I am a sinner, i.e. a bad person.

You telling me that I need to submit to the Lord's Prayer tells me that you consider me a sinner. The Lord's Prayer says, "Forgive us our debts/trespasses as we forgive our debtors/those who trespass against us" or however those lines get translated. Basically, it means "forgive me because I am bad."

Incidentally, I refuse to be offended by something as stupid as the Lord's Prayer but I think my point is made. That line is hugely offensive from a social perspective. You, Jeff, don't know me. You have no basis on which to pronounce me bad or a trespasser of any law, sacred or secular. "Sin" is a religious concept. Few people, religious or otherwise, can define it when pressed.

There's stupid definitions like "falling short of the mark" that mean nothing. Short of what mark? We can always set the mark a bit higher, in case someone is a bit too smart for whoever is doing the controlling. Then it can be lowered for the mildly retarded person whom we also want in the fold or kingdom of heaven. I was told sin means to intentionally do that which we know is wrong.

I have yet to find people--outside evangelical Christians--who do that. And I think on some level even evangelicals think it's right to lie and deceive if it fills pews and the collection plate. However, I was taught so very strongly that lying is wrong that I cannot imagine what it would be like to think it's right to "lie for Jesus." The Bible say "all" liars have their part in the lake that burns with brimstone and fire (Rev. 21:8). And the Ten Commandments forbid to "bear false witness." Lying about any matter, even about Jesus or one's own religious experiences, is "bearing false witness." My conscience tells me there is nothing more repulsive or evil than bearing false witness or lying about sacred matters. It is for this that I suffered--and continue to suffer--much persecution from religious people.

Back on topic. So you think your religion is kind and loving. No, not at all, not at all. Neither in real life nor on these forums. Your religion is one of persecution for all who disagree--it is ridicule and arrogance and oppression for all who dare disagree. It begins in the Bible with the biblical text and instruction.

So you think it's quite okay to offend all atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Jews, Siekhs, and whoever else immigrated to Canada in the last four or five centuries, along with the peoples whose ancestors have lived here since time immemorial with a prayer that paints us evil with one repitition. But for us to suggest that Christianity is a throw-back to the Dark Ages, when in literal fact that is what it is, is not acceptable? There is zero evidence for your god. The historicity of your Jesus is brought into question. Sin, the central problem for which Christianity exists to solve, is an indefinite concept. I would appreciate if you would explain on what grounds you consider your position tenable.

His reply shows a total lack of understanding or empathy of people who disagree with Christianity. It can be seen at the link in my post above.

Theism, Atheism and Ideology, Post 4 on ReasonableFaith.org:

Papadot lays out the differences and similarities between theism, atheism, and ideology, with a focus on method of operation. I find it very helpful and respond:

I've been trying really hard to figure out where the Christians on these forums are coming from when they claim to know what we believe due to our "atheistic worldview."

1. It feels like they think they can control what an atheist thinks and believes about reality.
2. They seem to claim omniscience (the power of knowing what other people think).
3. They seem to hold a rigidly black and white view of the world; if we don't believe what they do they think we must of necessity believe the exact opposite--defined in their terms.

The wiki article on presuppositionalist theology gave me some insight. It seems to be beneath their dignity to legitimize our point of view by granting as valid a view that does not include god. For some of these people (and I'm not sure that this is in the linked article) all morals are believed to originate from their god. In other words, any good deed done, or any decent word spoken, by an atheist is of necessity the outcome of their god because their god is the source and originator of goodness.

Thus:

All good things come from God.
Morals come from God.
Therefore God exists.

I'm sure I'm doing something wrong with this syllogism but it's circular thinking no matter how you set it up.

Morality proves the existence of God.
God is the originator and source of morals.

It's all so convoluted and twisted in one big game that it's really hard to get one's head around it. The strawmen they errect in order to blow to bits are simply ridiculous. But they always pat themselves on the back at their cunning in blowing up yet another strawman.

It's getting late and I'm not sure if I'm making sense anymore.

[Papadot replied that it sounds about right.]

You quote your favourite author and I'll quote mine. You choose what label you identify with and I'll choose mine. Nontheists do not agree among themselves regarding definitions so it's not surprising that Christians disagree. What is outrageous--or ludicrous, depending how one looks at the matter--is when Christians spend enormous amounts of time and energy to build a strawman and rip it to bits. And then think they have accomplished something.

That's like getting the Iraqi army into Washington, DC to shoot a scarecrow made to look like Barak Obama or George W. Bush or whoever. After they've killed the thing, the real guy walks out unharmed.

Because Christians never listen to what atheists actually believe, they never challenge our beliefs and we can't even see if they stand up to criticism. Please do us the favour of at least critiquing our actual beliefs once in a while.



So I guess you fill your tummy on donut holes? As we keep repeating countless times, there is no ideology of atheism because atheism is nothing.

As for environmentalism. You can always say environmentalism is based on atheism because if there is no god there will be no second coming and we have to take care of the planet ourselves. I realize that you personally do not put much (if any) stock on the second coming. However, large enough proportions of powerful Christians believe strongly enough in the Second Coming of Christ to impact environmentalism and other politics. Your pretending that Christianity isn't this way because you or your church isn't does not change the global situation.

As for communism being atheist. Harvey, how do you defend that claim? Communism has been part of the Christian church's life and policies from the beginning. Acts 2:44-45, 4:32, Acts 5:1-10. The monasteries and nunneries for the last thousand years or so were communes. Other communes have been set up in various times and places by various Christian groups, as well as other religions, throughout the past two thousand years, and possibly earlier. To this day, the Hutterites live in communes.

It is true that in the last two centuries communism has been tried on the national level with varying success. Please be aware that Lenin did NOT follow the model set out by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles. Also be aware that the murders committed by his successor Stalin had nothing to do with atheism or communism; they had much to do with a seriously insecure, superstitious, and power-hungry man.

As for atheism/theism impacting politics, let's look at Christianity, capitalism, and the welfare state. The strongest capitalist industrialized country in the world today is the United States. The US is also the world's most Christian country in terms of how many people go to church and/or identify as Christian.

(I will accept no argument as to who is a "True Christian." If Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent me, then George W. Bush, Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, the Crusade War Lords, Popes, and Bishops, The War Lords, Popes, Bishops and preachers of the Thirty Years War (one of Europe's most destructive wars ever and started largely over religion), and the Emperor Constantine, successors and generals represent you.)

The welfare state is such things as big government, socialized medicine, and other stuff that makes for reasonable survival for the ill, the disabled, the aged, and the very young. Infant mortality rate is a common way used to measure the quality of a country's healthcare system, and quality of life in general. The United States ranks far lower than most industrialized countries on infant mortality rate. I can't find it right now, but some time ago I studied a website of World Health Organization, or something official like that. Apparently, capitalism plus Christianity make for baby killing. (This is full term babies.)

The welfare state brought about in other parts of the world was due mainly to the very liberal Christians or non-religious citizens. This is all the way from ending slavery, to making education available to the public, to legalizing abortion, and instituting gay marriage.

Remember, the Bible not only condones slavery but lays out exactly how the institution should be operated, from the slave's child to the divine right of kings. The first country to build its constitution on democracy and renounce the divine right of kings, or monarchy, today allows capitalist Christians to rule supreme blessed by their prosperity gospel and oil. Tell me there's something not right with this picture.