The pre-911 polarization of the religious right vs. liberalism was intense enough for some. But, following 911, some on the Left concluded that Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are virtually identical and felt compelled to respond. So now we have an atheistic backlash against religion lead by people such as Dawkins and Harris that is gaining many followers in cyberspace. No?
02.13.07.1919
I don’t know if you can accurately state that as the cause of the conclusion you’ve formulated. There are other ways to gauge the rise in popularity of atheist writers. YouTube or Google Video for example…
It is an interesting hypothesis you’ve formulated though… it certainly sounds reasonable to assume.
It was a snap analysis and no doubt an oversimplification. Yet condemnation of religion is a recurring theme I’m hearing in much of the on-line chatter. Hey its not like some on the religious right haven’t earned it. What’s interesting to me is that they are going after the moderates too which is kind of where I see myself.
The internet is a haven for the young and the young-minded. Religion is culture, youth is counter- or anti-cultuer, and the internet is the solvent that desolves culture.
Any person with IQ over 65, who have seen Loose Change 9/11, can gain
understanding, that 9/11 was calculated Business Plan, for preservance
of American way of Life, financed by Oil, Heroin, Lobying of Illusions etc.
www is very Significant part of Day of the Lord, and New heaven New Earth Prophecies, written in Torah.
The Day of the LORD
28 "And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
29 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
30 I will show wonders in the heavens
and on the earth,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
31 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.
32 And everyone who calls
on the name of the LORD will be saved;
for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there will be deliverance,
as the LORD has said,
among the survivors
whom the LORD calls.
New Heavens and a New Earth
17 "Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
20 "Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach [a] a hundred
will be considered accursed.
21 They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the works of their hands.
23 They will not toil in vain
or bear children doomed to misfortune;
for they will be a people blessed by the LORD,
they and their descendants with them.
24 Before they call I will answer;
while they are still speaking I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD.
much love
Jewpiter
I favor religious tolerance myself. Incidently, NPR’s Morning Edition is running a series about the differences between Sunni and Shia right now that is interesting. You can access it here: npr.org/templates/story/stor … Id=7332087
02.13.07.1920
Such pessimism… how utterly vexatious of you Ucc. Do you honestly believe that the world cannot live peaceably in a secular culture without religion whatsoever?
I didn’t say anything even vaguely like that one way or the other, Sage. But since you’ve asked, I didn’t say anything against a secular culture, I was speaking of non-culture and anti-culture. Secularism isn’t necessarily the same thing. As to the question of peace, is there peace in Hell?
Ha!
“if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.”
Psalm 139
The internet is definitely transforming culture.
The internet is annhilating the concept of culture- but it’s not the only force doing so. Anyways, this is why it should be no surprise that anti-religious comments and attitudes are common amongst people who live on the internet. You will find a distaste for all things traditional here.
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. It’s convinced it’s the Capital-T Truth and those who don’t agree are unworthy and will suffer the consequences if they don’t come around.
I don’t know if this is the case, as there are plenty of fundamentalists of all stripes on the Net. But if it is, then perhaps the backlash is more about religion interfering more these days with public life, rather than remaining confined to the churches and/or homes where it belongs. I can see how 9/11 being characterized as religious fanatacism has contributed to this increase in public religion in the U.S., not to mention the evangelical president who’s never made a logical connection between the Iraq war he started and the perpetrators of 9/11. It’s either holy war, Oedipus-fueled or oil/corporate facism. Or some mix of them. It’s sure not about what happened on 9/11.
Practice of religion (or not) is supposed to be a private choice. A free country allows that choice, but the expectation is that it’s always up to each individual and it remains private. Bring it into the public forums, and backlash is inevitable. Unless the government starts squashing such dissent, I guess.
Ingenium
Source? Religion is almost universally throughout history been a community choice.
The source is the Bill of Rights. While its benefits (protection against unwarranted interference) are recognized by both individuals and communities, it’s fundamentally about the freedom of individuals. It has to be, as communities are comprised of individuals and not the other way around.
So the Bill of Rights only endorses Protestantism? That seems kind of odd. Respecting one’s right to choose a religion for themselves, and saying that religion is supposed to be are two different things. The Bill of Rights doesn’t determine human nature- condemned to be free and all that. But it remains a fact that religion is a cultural phenomenon, complete with heirarchy, interest in politics, tradition, dogma, taboo, authority and the whole nine yards. If the Bill of Rights wasn’t written to respect that, then it wasn’t written to respect the religions that human beings actually follow, and hence was a waste of ink.
Just in a general way, saying that something is supposed to be personal, individual, is no reason to say that it shouldn’t be part of the public forum and influence world events. We vote as individuals, after all. Nobody ‘brought’ religion into the public forum, it existed there since it’s beginning, despite current popular attempts to forcibly throw it out again.
I agree with your view except that as I understand it there’s no way to “throw it out.” It’s categorically there. Religion includes atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism are religions too. To the degree that this country is democratic any religion is free to get their candidate elected if they can get the votes. Those “ungodly” religions are protected by first amendment just as much as the "godly’ ones.
Well, I won’t get into the whole ‘atheism as a religion’ thing, but I don’t have any problem exactly with atheists pushing their causes and trying to get their people in positions of power. I oppose them, because their interests are not my interests, and they are wrong about many important things. But opposing someone in the context of the politics, is different from saying they shouldn’t be allowed to play politics in the first place. Atheist’s say it about the religious all the time, and I’ve never heard the religious say it about the atheists this side of Qatar.
Atheists and agnostics define their beliefs in terms of monotheism. I guess we should feel flattered.
Well, the atheist is closer than the pagan, that’s a fact. IT is nice.
02.13.07.1921
You never said the word “secular”, no, but hear me out on my reasoning of what you said here Ucc. I’ll re-quote your original comment…
Before responding to the first sentence (which is what I should have done in the first place), I will clarify my reasoning of your second sentence. You claim that religion is culture, meaning that anything but religion (i.e. secularism) is against culture. Unless you would care to elaborate on the definition of “religion”; such as amending it so that “religion” also includes the concepts of “secularism” and “atheism”, even “homosexuality”. If not, then I would like to hear by what reasoning you believe that a “culture” must have something to do with “religion”.
To respond to the first sentence, you claim that the Internet is a haven for the young and the young-minded… later attributing that the Internet is devoid of culture. This is a very gross error. Take ILP for example. It is a community which exists on the Internet… we have a set of rules to which we must abide by lest we be expelled from the stated community. Explain to me how this is not the basis of an Internet culture?
Yes, the Internet is a haven for the young… but also the middle-aged, the old, the stupid, and the wise. You cannot simply cut down the tree because you view a few apples as bad.
Felix said it best: “The Internet is definitely transforming culture.” It couldn’t be more true… the Internet is not the devaluation of culture… it is the evolution of it. In some places it is for the worse, others for the better, but there is change.
Exactly what do you consider “traditional”, Ucc? You will find places on the Internet where communities exist of aficionados of fine music, food, and… dare I say it… culture. I’m sure you’ll even find Christian communities… but then, you’re against those too, right?
Really Ucc, would you be saying all these things if the entire Internet was 100% Christian?
I’m going to stop here instead of going further down the line of your comments, to give you a chance to respond with an explanation for what I’ve pointed out so far.