Faith Under Fire

Posted by Karoli in News December 10th, 2007

This is unlikely to be a popular post, but I’m compelled to write it anyway in light of the shootings at two separate Colorado locations today. A total of four people were killed today at the New Life Church and the Youth With a Mission training center in Colorado Springs. I don’t often talk about my faith here on this blog, but today is an exception.

Shooting up churches on Sunday or any other day is just…horrible. It’s certainly as horrible as shooting up malls in the middle of the holiday season. I have no idea why one or two people decided to do so, but I do not view it as mere coincidence that faith-based institutions were the targets of the shooters. It is symptomatic of a larger and more insidious message that plays well on many stations these days; namely, that faith is dead, religion is dead, and so too should be the people who espouse such things.

I’ve noticed a trend lately on many of the blogs I read to equate religion with faith, and it’s a negative association. This may be simply a function of the type of blogs I read, but I’ve seen enough of it lately that it’s starting to feel personal. Part of this is the release of The Golden Compass and the official condemnation of the film and Dark Materials series that it’s based upon. Personally, I’m not a fan of condemning anything outright, particularly when it comes to books and movies, and I strongly disagree with the Catholic Church stance on The Golden Compass. But you won’t hear about that in the mainstream because it seems to be the style right now to assume that anyone who has faith has difficulty thinking for themselves.

I’m sure that the current political landscape is responsible for much of the current anti-faith rage, and I can’t say that I blame anyone who listens to Pat Buchanan or James Dobson and assumes that they are the voice of everyone who has faith, since they are the most extreme and the most negative voices out there. Let me give you a different picture of a larger group of quieter voices, of which I am one.

  • Pat Buchanan, James Dobson and other high-profile preachers and politicians do not represent us, do not speak for us, and in our view, have allowed their message to be jaded and twisted by the power and money they have garnered through the exploitation of the political process and their extreme views.
  • We have no desire to judge anyone else or point fingers, because we are as imperfect as the next person.
  • We accept that acting on faith is an irrational act. We will not be able to prove what we believe through science or historical fact. We might be able to tie certain events into history but at some point the act of faith prevails, which is to say there are things we cannot see and which we cannot prove but still believe to be true. I make no apology for that.  Having faith brings me peace, but I am not stupid or ignorant or blind either.
  • We are not afraid to have our thinking challenged and put our beliefs to the test, provided that in so doing, we do not bring pain or hurt to others.
  • We believe that faith and science are not irreconcilable.
  • We believe that the Bible is the word of God, but we also agree that we do not understand it fully, particularly when placed into historical context.
  • We wish no harm on anyone, regardless of their beliefs, lack of beliefs, or lifestyle.

What I want: Just minimum respect.  I am not a foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic and am not trying to shove my faith down your throats. I’d appreciate the same consideration — I’ve got no desire to have your arguments for your lack of faith shoved down mine, too. On this we can agree: Religion is generally a way to oversimplify and even corrupt faith, whether it’s Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or otherwise. People of faith aren’t always people of religion. Some of us think. Some of us leave room for other views. Where we can’t agree, let’s just agree that we can’t and leave it at that.
I could easily have been one of the churchgoers in the crosshairs this morning. Isn’t there a better way to have a conversation about this?

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Sphere: Related Content


Leave a comment Comment RSS

Previous: Please Disqus
Next: 1968

Viewing 10 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I'm sorry, but who exactly is shoving their lack of faith down your throat, and what exactly is the form of this shoving? This is a common claim by the religious, that atheists are somehow forcing themselves on others, but what exactly are the atheists doing? Writing books? Stating their position on blogs? This is shoving?

    Wake me when "There Is No God" is on all our currency and presidential candidates make speeches that there can be no freedom without atheism.

    And seriously, what is this:

    "I could easily have been one of the churchgoers in the crosshairs this morning. Isn’t there a better way to have a conversation about this?"

    Melodramatic much? You just naturally assume that the shooter did what he did because he was anti-religious? Oh those atheists, why must they converse with guns? The "anti-faith rage" claims more lives!
    • ^
    • v
    Maybe melodramatic -- I'm willing to own that. But on the other hand, I was in church yesterday, just not that church. And I have assisted young people to attend training at the YWAM center that was under attack yesterday, so I found that shooting particularly tragic.

    As to your comments about currency and candidates, I agree with you. It is the politicization of religion that has increased the repugnance factor with everyone, including me. I cringe when these guys start speechifying about their righteousness and right to own an office because they are of one faith or another.

    As to the shoving, I view the mocking tone that you came at me with as an example of that. I can understand anger at religions, but why mock people with faith? That's the distinction I'm drawing -- faith is an entirely different matter than religion.
    • ^
    • v
    I see what you're talking about, and there's always a 'but' now a days. Mine comes from the fact that i have no problem with people having faith or religion, EXCEPT! when I ask a few questions, and one being: Do you have a problem with Homosexuality or same sex marriage? And dependant upon that answer, well, you drop yourself onto a list, and I'm pretty sure you can guess which list you'll be on depending upon the person putting you on their "Lists." I happen to fall in the "Gay" category.

    That's probably my biggest reason for dislike within religion, and well, till you say I can't get married, we can be friends. But just know, the subject will ALWAYS be a topic of discussion with the few of "US" who speak quietly, and it will be brought up when need be to challenge our friendship. I assume you have no problem with my hopes for the future :]
    • ^
    • v
    I have no problem with same-sex marriage. That's what I'm trying to say -- there are a lot of us out there who don't really want to take that on and say it's right or wrong, because in our view, it's not up to us to be the arbiters of what is or is not moral or correct, or "christian". But what you hear is the Dobsons and whoever else happens to be shrill and without reason, to the detriment of all of us.

    Truth be told, and this is a separate topic, obviously...I believe the anti-gay marriage initiative is more a political and economic question than religious. I don't think the economists will quite know what to do with the idea of recognizing same-sex marriages in the context of employee benefits and the like, so they frame it as a moral issue to hide their penny-pinching ways, within and without the government.

    Anyway, that's exactly the thing..why is it any of my business whether you're married to someone of your gender or not? And it's certainly not consistent with what Jesus taught us to do. There are a lot of Pharisees in the public eye, but that doesn't mean we all agree.
    • ^
    • v
    Amen!

    I think faith and intelligence can co-exist in the same person, and your post proves it.

    To the other commenters: Did you even READ what she had to say? Or the topics she has blogged about in the past. Because those seem like knee-jerk reactions to the subject matter, rather than the substance of her post.
    • ^
    • v
    Yes, I read what she had to say. She said that she's tired of being lumped together with crazies like Pat Buchanan and James Dobson who "do not represent us, do not speak for us, and in our view, have allowed their message to be jaded and twisted by the power and money they have garnered through the exploitation of the political process and their extreme views." She said she is not a "foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic".

    The problem is, in order to distance yourself from those crazies, there's one obligation you have to follow: *don't act like them*.

    Following 9/11, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell got on national TV and blamed the attack on the gays and the liberals. They took advantage of a horrible tragedy to attack their usual foes.

    And what did Karoli do in her post? She used a tragedy to attack her foes. I have no idea if they're her usual foes or foes de jour, but her intent was clear: she doesn't like those anti-faith people shoving their anti-faith down her throat and this incident was a wonderful opportunity to wag a finger at them and say what horrible people they are and to blame them for it.

    Oh, but there's just one problem. Did you hear the news?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_us...

    The gunman was one of their own. A disgruntled former member. Not an atheist, not someone filled with "anti-faith rage", not someone following through on the trendy throat-shoving "conversation" on faith. He was simply a fellow Christian with mental issues.

    Karoli, you complain about my mocking tone, but why do you think that your rush to capitalize on tragedy deserves more than mockery? Note that I wasn't mocking people of faith, I was mocking you.

    "faith is an entirely different matter than religion"

    Religion is merely when someone sits down and writes out what their faith is. Faith without religion is just incoherent mumbling. If you can explain your faith coherently, then you are have, and are engaged in, religion.
    • ^
    • v
    With regard to 'capitalizing on a tragedy' , it appears clear from the news reports that he was not 'one of their own'. It also seems clear that he was suffering from some sort of untreated mental illness.

    "Not an atheist, not someone filled with "anti-faith rage", not someone following through on the trendy throat-shoving "conversation" on faith. He was simply a fellow Christian with mental issues."

    According to news reports, he was filled with 'anti-Christian' rage: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/11/shooter.youth/...

    "I have no idea if they're her usual foes or foes de jour, but her intent was clear: she doesn't like those anti-faith people shoving their anti-faith down her throat and this incident was a wonderful opportunity to wag a finger at them and say what horrible people they are and to blame them for it."

    Perhaps you believe you saw my intent clearly, but if you haven't read any of my other blog posts, how could you possibly know my intent? This was the second post in over 1,000 in the span of 2 1/2 years that I've written about Christianity. It is an uncommon topic on my blog. My response was simply that: a response to my perception that there's a lot of anti-Christian sentiment that should actually be recharacterized as anti-religion sentiment.

    "Religion is merely when someone sits down and writes out what their faith is."

    Disagree with you completely here. Religion is an outward manifestation of faith. It has nothing to do with writing it; it has to do with living it. And when it's corrupt, it has to do with meaningless traditions and rules and don'ts, can'ts and judgments pronounced from on high.
    • ^
    • v
    We believe that the Bible is the word of God, but we also agree that we do not understand it fully, particularly when placed into historical context.


    A good set of principles except this one, which is problematic due to the fact that there are passages in the epistles of Paul which explicitly state that they are ~not~ the word of God. Furthermore, the Psalms are prayers addressed ~to~ God and much of the Bible is narrative.

    Suggest that you appreciate the ~influence~ of God in the Bible bearing in mind that it is a human document and subject to human error in its compilation.
    • ^
    • v
    Joel, whether that's problematic or not depends on what someone means by "the word of God." For example, the Psalms addressed to God, and the passages of Paul's that represent his thoughts and not official church teaching, could be viewed as the word of God in that they contain things that God wants us to know about Life, the Universe, and Everything. They aren't divine dictation, but they are a divine communication delivered to us through human agency. That's me own way of understanding the Bible as God's word, but there are many other ways of understanding it that run the gamut of belief and opinion.
    • ^
    • v
    waderocket, that sounds to me like a runaround rather than a valid argument. "It's not written by God, but it is God's Word. Even where it says it is not or obviously is not."
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus