Obama on “Belief” in America

A Social Commentary

It is a sad fact of life that despite the ever-growing number of Americans embracing unbelief, atheists continue to suffer the ill-effects of racist-style intolerance at the hands of religious zealots; particularly in small-town America where implacable, ultra-religious bigwigs (and those feigning pious and devout sentiments) hold sway; where the Holier than Thou’s determine the “comfort level” area atheists are permitted to enjoy—even determine whether an individual atheist or family can reside in “their” community in some instances!

For non-believers feeling the full brunt of such intolerance there seemed to be no hope that things would change for the better anytime soon. 

Then along came Barack Obama’s “Call to Renewal” speech of June 28, 2006:

Barack is here, resolute, unequivocal, and speaking from the heart. He is a man tackling a very sensitive issue with the moral courage of his convictions. Finally, a presidential candidate unafraid to stand up for the non-religious American! A candidate who, fortunately enough, is now our 44^th President.

So what has the Call for Renewal speech done for the atheist suffering the “love” of Christian bigots in the workplace or elsewhere within their community these past three years? Not much, unfortunately. Atheist-despising religious bigots continue to discriminate with virtual impunity. Our courts continue to ignore flagrant anti-atheist behavior. And most Americans continue to view atheists as inherently immoral and unethical—no matter how baseless the charge.

Yet a change has taken place. The fact that Obama included the term “unbelievers” in the same breath and on equal-footing with religious denominations most Americans hold with deep reverence marks a positive, progressive, shift in today’s political thought. 

Barack, being the shrewd, savvy, politician he is, has sensed a change in the air. His own heart-felt conviction that every American has the right to unbelief without reproach, coupled with clear-cut evidence that more Americans no longer feel the need to embrace belief to get through their day-to-day existence, has worked towards wearing away some of the tarnish long associated with the atheist world-view.

It’s only a baby first-step towards elevating atheism to its rightful position in America’s body politic. But it is a rational, progressive step in the right direction.

We should be immensely grateful to now President Obama for the moral backbone, leadership, and forward-thinking he so bravely exhibited.

 

The Atheist and the Good Christian

A Social Commentary

In recent decades atheists have seen a remarkable increase in the number of Americans joining their ranks—right along with an increase in antipathy towards the Christians that make up the religious right. And why not? Far too many far-right Christians have made transforming the United States into as close to a theocracy as possible their life’s mission.

“Reclaiming America for Christ!” is what some of their leaders have labeled this pipe-dream; insisting all the while that in the course of promoting their faith they would not  impose their religious views on others. Just who they think they’ve been fooling with their patently disingenuous rhetoric, however, is anyone’s guess.

This quasi-theocracy would, of course, be led by individuals with a built-in abhorrence of and contempt for atheists and other freethinkers; individuals whose only “crime” is one of unbelief; fellow Americans guilty of nothing more than harboring a reasoned difference of opinion with those who believe in alleged supernatural creatures that not a one of them can prove exist!

But we’ve been speaking in regards to an extremist minority up to this point. What about the ‘good’ Christian? What about the ‘love thy neighbor as thyself,’ Golden Rule-abiding friend, relative, or acquaintance that carry themselves in a manner we atheists often find downright “noble”; that stripe of Christian that is nearly as opposed to the religious right zealots as the non-believer? We atheists all know such individuals. More likely, several. What about them?

Fact is that these wonderful people, these wonderful Christians, want to believe what they want to believe and have every right to do so. End of story.

Fact too is that despite our resounding differences of opinion, atheists respect, even admire, good Christians who do genuine good. The good Christian, we know, is possessed of grand character and a noble heart. But perhaps equally important, a live-and-let-live spirit of amiability that is so vital to peaceful co-existence in a country filled with so many divergent beliefs as ours.

The 'Good' Christian

The good Christian embraces a profound belief in his or her God while respecting the atheist’s right to disbelieve. The rabid, far-right Christian does not. The good Christian poses no real threat to the atheist, agnostic, or most any other shade of freethinking individual. We are, in fact, far more alike than dissimilar, the atheist and the good Christian.

The Christian extremist, on the other hand, does this country no real good. Their brand of Christianity is a bane on our cultured, freedom-loving society. They need to learn how to actually live  the Golden Rule like the good Christians do instead of just speak of it in the abstract or apply it only to Christians of their own persuasion. They need to learn to be more accepting of those who do not share their world-view. After all it’s their world-view, not ours; we atheists live on this planet too.

Non-believers are an ever growing segment of American society. But just as important is the fact that we are every bit as moral and ethical as the Christians - often more so! Ever wonder which world-view those overflowing our jails and prisons to beyond capacity tend to call their own? Go figure.

Why Did “Doubting Thomas” . . . “Doubt”?

A Bible-Related Commentary

One of the most peculiar episodes one encounters in the gospel chronicles centers on Apostle Thomas Didymus’ startling unwillingness to believe Jesus actually arose from the dead.

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them, Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” [John 20:24-29: NASB]

Thomas’ incredulity would be perfectly understandable under normal circumstances; after all, no one truly dead for “three days and three nights” is magically restored to life in reality. But incredulity would hardly be a normal reaction to the news of Jesus’ bodily return to life if what Thomas Didymus is said to have seen, heard, and experienced in the gospel narratives is accepted as the “gospel truth”.

To begin with, Jesus is reported to have foretold his death and resurrection in the presence of his immediate disciples on at least three separate occasions. We cite here Mark 8:31 as an illustrative example:

And he began to teach them that the Son of Man [Jesus here referring to himself] must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days be raised from the dead. [Cf. Matt. 16:27-28; Luke 7:26-26; and par.: NASB]

Then there is the matter of Thomas purportedly being an eye-witness to the raising of the widow of Nain’s only son from the dead depicted in Luke 7:11-17—in addition to the raising of Lazarus portrayed earlier in John (11:1-44).

But more astounding yet is Matthew’s clear inference that Thomas himself  had been endowed with the ability to “raise the dead” —and through Jesus, no less! (Or so the natural reading of Matthew 10:8.)  Proof positive, one would think, that Jesus’ return to life would have come as no real surprise to Thomas.

So why did “Doubting Thomas” ever “doubt” the reports of Jesus’ resurrection?

It is all but certain the episode in John’s narrative–as reported–never happened. The psychological implausibility of it occurring in light of what Thomas Didymus is said to have witnessed, experienced, and been taught as a member of Jesus’ immediate inner circle is just too great to accept at face value.

To accept John 20:24-29 as historically accurate one is compelled to discount the accounts where Thomas witnessed the widow of Nain’s son and Lazarus brought miraculously back to life, as well as Matthew’s inference that all twelve apostles were endowed with the power to raise the dead prior to their being sent on the missionary journey discussed in chapter ten. Accounts, we hasten to add, that should  be discounted as unhistorical in the eyes of more than a few “realists”.

The doubting Thomas story probably arose out of a need to help combat early “Gnostic” Christian belief that Jesus was not truly human but a ‘spirit,’ and as such, not possessed of a real human body. To many Christians the “risen Jesus” of the resurrection stories was no more than an apparition, a “ghost”. Something was needed to bolster a proto-orthodox belief in a bodily risen Jesus. What better way to bolster that belief than to circulate a story wherein one of the twelve apostles, one harboring rigid disbelief in the appearance of a bodily risen Jesus, is converted to belief by a visit from an unmistakably bodily risen Jesus?

And is not the “doubting Thomas” story used for this express purpose unto this very day?

The fool has said in his heart . . .

A Bible-Related Commentary

“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”. They are corrupt; they have committed  abominable deeds; There is not one who does good.”

What dyed-in-the-wool atheist hasn’t had the words of Psalm 14:1 (paralleled in 53:1) hurled in their direction at some point in debate with proselytizing Christians? And were they not, on occasion, dispatched with a haughtiness bordering on contempt?

But all is not what it seems. There is a side to Psalm 14:1 that atheist-disparaging Christians may find rather embarrassing. A look back to Psalm 13  is needed, however, in order to properly understand the words of Psalm 14:1 set in their proper context.

Psalm 13 reveals an agonized yet uplifted Israelite who feels that his God has forsaken him. Present are signs that his faith has undergone assault as well. 

       How long, O LORD? Will You forget me forever?
         How long will You hide Your face from me?
       How long shall I take counsel in my soul,
         Having sorrow in my heart all the day?
         How long will my enemy be exalted over me?
      Consider and answer me, O LORD my God;
         Enlighten my eyes, or I will sleep the sleep of death,
      And my enemy will say, “I have overcome him,”
         And my adversaries will rejoice when I am shaken. [Vv. 1-4: NASB]

Feeling overwhelmed and dejected–at least initially–by a God he sees as agonizingly unresponsive and distant, our beleaguered Israelite turns, in Psalm 14, to belittling his nonbelieving adversaries in kind, labeling them ‘fools’ (and worse) for failing to embrace belief–not in a supreme deity per se–but belief in his supreme deity! The Psalmist  is not referring to some abstract metaphysical construct devoid of substance in Psalm 14:1, but to the God of the OT book of Genesis. Or to be more precise: the non-Trinitarian version of that God.

The author of Psalm 14:1 wasn’t really saying, “Anyone who believes no ‘God’ exists is a fool”. That is a relatively modern day spin on the text. He was actually saying that anyone unconvinced of the reality of the God of Israel—that is to say Yahweh–was a fool! The Hebrew word nabal (נבל = ‘fool’) being used here to designate someone morally deficient. 

So how does this all relate to atheist-disparaging Christians?

Regardless of whoever the Job-like Israelite of Psalms 13 and 14 (or its author) was originally, it is quite clear that his antagonists were not really atheists. They simply were individuals who believed in some deity (or deities) other than Yahweh. True atheists—as the term is understood today–are a product of far more modern times.

Truth is, if one were to insert Christians amid the collection of those not fully accepting of the non-Trinitarian ‘God’ of the Israelite of Psalm 14:1, they would be deemed ‘fools’ as well! They would be seen as polytheists and dismissed right along with the rest of the ‘atheists’.