Caught in the Crossfire

collateral damage: noun Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation

 I am going to preface this post by saying that I readily concede that there are millions of good, kind, considerate, intelligent Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other faiths, who inhabit this planet. IOW, there are millions of reasonable, smart, loving religious proponents out there, who, thankfully, are less stringent than their fundamentalist counterparts, and who, thankfully, have an innate sense of empathy and "right" and "wrong", in which case, these people then realize that it would be wrong and down-right dangerous to take any book that says that it is just fine to KILL anyone and everyone who opposes or who attempts to lead them away from their chosen Faith, literally. This goes for keeping and beating slaves; this goes for pelting rebellious kids with rocks; this goes for stoning to death any newlywed woman who is found to not be a "virgin" on her wedding day.... and generally, this goes for any other clearly moronic and insipidly harmful act found in any book.

Saying this, two books come to mind: 1) The Holy Bible 2) The Holy Qu'ran.

Since I live in a country that is predominately Christian; and since I was born into a family of devout Christians, which, subsequently, led to my being raised to be a Christian, I am going to focus on Christianity and its Christians, but in this case, the liberal variety, many of whom are the type of people that I just described above.

As I've said in the past, I have many friends and family who profess Christianity, people whom I love and with whom I get along just fine, no problems. We simply agree not to discuss religion or to attempt to convert each other. With that out of the way and brought to the forefront---and with my complete, on-the-record acknowledgment that these people are things like kind, compassionate, and yes, intelligent---I do, however, believe that each one of them compartmentalizes his or her beliefs, and I have no qualms about saying so. This is not....repeat, not ...some derogatory judgment with the intend to flame anyone. No, it is merely pointing out a demonstrable, observable fact about them, and about all Christians. It is precisely the same thing that I did in my former days as a believer in Christianity.

To encapsulate, Christians know, in a practical, day-to-day-living sense, that "Allah" has no referent in reality and that Muslims are mistaken. They know that the "God" that a Muslim prays to several times a day is a complete figment of the praying Muslim's imagination. Christians know that "Muhammad" did not sit in a cave somewhere in the Middle-East jotting down the Will and Testament of "The Almighty Allah", and afterwards, hopped on winged pony and flew off into the clouds. No, that is just myth and the ramblings of mere mortal men. Christians know all of this.

So, like it or not, there is a bit of a common ground between Christians and Atheists after all, specifically, that both take the same stance when it comes to "Allah" and the "Holy Qu'ran".

Now, where does the difference come into play? Where does the compartmentalization come into play?

It comes into play right here: Atheists feel the exact same way when it comes to the claims of Christianity as Christians do when it comes to Islam. IOW, Christians make an exception for their own brand of mythology, AKA, compartmentalizing.

So........

Dear, Liberal Christians,

This is precisely why, when your fundamentalist, Evangelical counterparts attempt to tell us with a straight face that they believe that a snake, donkey, and shrub at one time spoke the human language; that it rained frogs sometime in the distant past; that a "firmament" holds up the sky("water"); that "demons" cause mental illness; that bird's blood heals leprosy; that dinosaurs never existed(or hitched a ride on the "The Ark"); that all non-Christians will spend an eternity in a "Lake of Fire"(AKA "Hell")......and the final splintering blow to our intelligence, that the universe, the earth, and all life on it, were created "as is" just a few thousand years ago, it is for this reason that they get the reactions that they get from us Atheists/Agnostics/former believers.

As you know - or as you should know - the scriptures that delineate the above are all false, and demonstrably so. You, as a liberal Christian, must square-up the above falsehoods with your Faith(and they aren't the only ones, BTW). I know all-too-well how you don't want to "throw the baby out with the bath water", because I was there---I wanted to hang on to Jesus and (what I believed was) my relationship with him. The fear that this life is all there is, frankly, scared me sh*tless, albeit it, I'd never have admitted it back then, just like many of you likely won't admit the thought scares you now. Of course, there's nothing to fear, because when death comes, we won't know that we are dead, nor that we had ever lived. But this is for another discussion.

So, for those of you liberal Christians who harbor a conviction and who intend to hang on to your faith, unquestionably, I am sorry if, when discussing the issues, that y'all's more-lenient, broad perspectives of Christianity get caught in the crossfire when/if we Atheists are taking your fundamentalist counterparts to task for their assertions, beliefs, judgments against us Atheists, etc. However, you should know that this just isn't going to change, nor should it. There is a war going on, yes, but it's not some spooky, supernatural "Spiritual War" between a "God" and a "Devil"; it is a war against legendary thinking and willful ignorance. When we are in any other war, there is what's called "collateral damage". This is inherently part of war and it happens when fighting for what's right.

While such damage is unfortunate - and in this case, while good, compassionate Christians get caught in the crossfire(I contend that you don't need "Jesus" or Christianity to be "good" or "compassionate", but this, too, is for another discussion) - please do not expect things to change anytime soon. And furthermore, I really, really wish you'd take just 10% of the time you spend taking issue with us Atheists, and spend that time calling out your own fundamentalist counterparts, instead of tip-toeing around them or letting them go unchallenged. I realize that some of you challenge them, but it doesn't happen enough, and you are implicitly giving them a "thumbs-up" when/if you remain silent.

Sincerely, a concerned *Agnostic Atheist

* the two things aren't mutually exclusive, for anyone wondering. 

Drawing the line: Who, When, and Where?

When it comes to the topics of religion and politics, noting, some religious folks derive some of their political views directly from their religion, any blogger who's not reading their own blog, exclusively, knows that discussions can sometimes get very heated. After all, we are talking about our most deeply-held, core beliefs.

In some instances, the people with whom I discuss these topics claim to possess the knowledge that I will suffer, and suffer greatly, if I do not come to see things their way and adopt their views. Specifically, I'm talking about people who profess to be "Christian", and of those, I'm talking specifically about those of the Evangelical flavor. And of course, I refer to the doctrine of "Hell".

But today I'm not going to vent on or get into why I believe the doctrine of "Hell" is despicable and should be denounced on every level. No, today I'm going to talk about when, where, and why we should draw the line when attempting discussion with Christian Evangelicals, which, more often than not, leads to us having to listen to them call us things like "trash", "wretched", "dumb", "blind", "destined for Hell", "never really saved", "closed-minded"...and just today I heard a new one, "Satan's little choir". These are a few of their favorite things to say when ministering to us.

For those who know me and my disdain for the doctrine of "Hell", they probably know straight away that if someone attempts that sh*t on my own blog, that, while I may attempt to reason with them at first, that this benefit of doubt will soon wear off if they keep at it. IOW, on my own blog, I don't draw the line at the very first sight of the risk of coming across unkind or "combative". No. I will likely go back and forth until the proselytizing visitor just accepts that his or her arguments for why people like myself are going to go to "Hell", and worse, that we deserve it, aren't unconvincing, and that they do not scare me one iota. But again, this is me on my own blog. So, what if we're a guest on someone else's blog and we encounter the above-described type of Evangelical Christian?

The way I see it, I have two choices: 1) I sit back and say nothing, or 2) I take them to task on their assertions. For me? Choice #1 is something that I not only find extremely difficult, I would contend that it would be borderline immoral for me to just turn a blind eye to it, much in the same way that if I saw a child being abused and turned a blind eye. Devil's advocate: "Well, Boomslang, what if you're not on your own property?" Answer: I don't see a difference, from where I sit.

Of course, analogies are never perfect; they are only meant to illustrate a point. Make no mistake, I would, yes, bust up a child-abuse in progress, even if it wasn't on my own property. But in contrast, "You're going to Hell, you dumb, Satan-worshiping Atheist!", are just words, albeit, very insulting words. So, if I encounter the latter scenario while on someone's else's blog, where, then, should the line be drawn, assuming discussion between opposing views is permitted? Where is the line drawn between taking someone to task, and being "argumentative"? Where is the line drawn between not backing down, and being "combative"? Where is the line drawn between an Atheist voicing his or her opinion, and him or her being a "militant Atheist"? Where is the line drawn between discussing.... and debating? Anyone?

One of my new readership touched on the topic of the danger of "over-generalizing", saying that being "silent" and "over-generalizing" is a false dichotomy. I agree with this. There is middle ground there. I would never deny this. But if we can agree that generalizing for practical purposes is useful, then I'd like to know where the line is drawn between useful generalizing..i.e..generalizing, not to prove anything, but to make a point, and "over-generalizing". Who draws that line and how is it determined where it is drawn?

Disclaimer: This is honest inquiry meant for discussion. I'm not "baiting" or looking to "one-up" anyone. I genuinely believe it is important for Atheists and Theists to understand one another.