New York Magazine takes a 30-second Sabbath from praising the tapioca TV show Gossip Girl to ask really the most important question of the day: Should atheists have their own church? My initial response is, No, they already have the Unitarian Universalists and most of the mainline denominations. My secondary response is, I’m not sure of the implications and connotations of the question. Is it asking, Should atheists institutionalize themselves in some sort of unity, pledging allegiance, money, and time? They’re already doing that in government and public schools. But if having their own church keeps them out of those two institutions, heck, I’m all for it. I’d even tithe to it, which would be less than I pay them in taxes. But instead of attacking my paragraph, why don’t you read the link and attack me after.
More Active Posts
Front Page
23 Comments
Don’t blame racism
My initial response is, No, they already have the Unitarian Universalists and most of the mainline denominations.
when you don’t have an intelligible response parsimony suggests maintaining silence. but, the precedent…
how presumptuous for you and sean macmanus to suggest what atheists should do, Harrison. Isn’t this what you get upset about when an atheist says religion should be like knitting? inconsistent hypocrisy, thy name is HSK.
Our English word “church”, a cognate of the Scottish “kirk” and German “kirche”, is derived from the Greek kyrios for Lord.
Atheists can have whatever association they want but should they attempt to call it a church they only focus attention on their unimaginative dependence on historical Christian thought and culture.
Organizations that thrive are those that are organized around something their members care about a lot. For short-term projects, it is sometimes something they are united in opposing. But for long-term community - which is what these people seem to be looking for - it needs to be something they are working together for. So a thriving organization organized around atheism seems an unlikely prospect.
People do need that sense of community, a group to turn to in times of trouble and to help when others are in need. I used to have an atheist friend who was Jewish and who found great support among people at the synagogue when she went through a divorce. She didn’t become religious, but she went every year for Yom Kippur because those were the people who were there for her when she needed them.
I had another non-religious friend who went to the Unitarian Church because she enjoyed the music and the motivational talks and the people. It didn’t seem to bother her that some of them did believe in God.
I think there are relatively few atheists who feel they need to belong to organizations that are specifically for atheists. Most non-religious people get involved in whatever organizations focus on causes that are important to them - same as religious people do. I think the best place to find a sense of community is among people you do things with that you care about, rather than people who are just trying to find a sense of community.
They have a church. It is called the DNC - The Democrat Nutcase Church which services all whack job socialists in a tolerant, multicultural, if miserable, way
“The Church of the Human Spirit”.
It’s called humanism. And I think its values are exactly the same as yours. With a whole lot less baloney. And a whole lot less pretense. And no magic.
I would suggest that its motto might be “We are enough cause for celebration”. Or “We are not afraid to say we don’t know.” Or maybe just “We know who we are”.
Good article: I learned two cool new terms:
1) Ignostic - “you’re never going to know what God is, so why waste your time worrying about it?”
2) Cultural Christian - “likes to sing Christmas carols as much as the next guy.”
In whatever building they gather it cannot be called a church, since by definition a church supposes a higher power, and usually is a building set apart for worship and then usually Christian worship. I fail to see how any self respecting atheist would consent to use the word church. Ah! blessed inconsistencies!
HSK: Wow, this post is marvel of snide ignorance on display, even by your standards.
I know a lot of UUs, actually. Some of them are more traditionally religious than others, but I only know one or two who are out-and-out atheists.
Government and public schools? This bit of snidery is too mindless and insulting for me to even have a comeback.
But of course, to one such as yourself, anyone who isn’t a conservative, near-Fundamentalist Christian might as well be an atheist, right?
Dr. Al Mohler’s blog has his take on this story (www.albertmohler.com/blog.php).
I think they should have their own group. And I think it should be called a church. And then they too will be subject to the establishment violations that they accuse Christians of.
Doesn’t having a church rather negate what athiesm is all about? Athiests tend to be independent sort of people strong–and often stupid–enough to stand against a society which mostly believes in a god of some sort. So why would a group of stubborn independent people form a church?
Although, KLASKO has a good point in 10.
#10 - they’re already subject to “infringement” violations.
Personally, I think the rise of atheism in America has much to do with reaction to the accelerated agression of anti-science, anti-human, Christian fundamentalism in America. The strongest argument for atheism is the Taliban!
#8 Well as I understand it, UU prefers the term “non-theist” - our local UU pastor is a “non-theist”.
RE #12,
Neo-Godwin’s Law:
Taliban = New Nazis
The key line of the article, which I found otherwise a waste of time, is this: “There’s a difference between building a community and building an atheist regime.”
Churches provide many people a community. It’s a social network, a volunteer outlet, a service center, etc. The atheist doesn’t have that in a church. Now, yes, the atheist can get that volunteering for other organizations and social clubs. But I do think that even those who deny or question God’s existence are interested in the “big questions” about ethics, morality, and how to live. Certainly, historically such questions have been part of Greco-Roman, Chinese, Indian, Native American heritage and that of many others irrespective of belief in god or gods.
Now others have already bashed Harrison, and I should resist. But I can’t. The idea that atheists have “all the mainline denominations” is absurd and insulting. Evidently no one is Christian unless s/he subscribes to the world according to HSK. Throw out all the mainlines and Catholics and Christianity becomes very small indeed. One might say, irrelevant.
#14 Judging by the Expelled posts, Godwin’s Law clearly doesn’t apply at WOW!
What I like about UU (though I am not one) is that you are not required to be a theist or a non-theist. I think it’s great to have human communities that appreciate the cultural value of religion-like meetings without the ideological nonsense that too-often goes with it. And I would rather be in this environment than in one where I was required to not believe!
Sorry … I can’t resist.
Q: What do you get when you cross a UU with a Jehovah’s witness.
A: Someone who knocks on your door to talk about nothing in particular.
Spinoza: Well as I understand it, UU prefers the term “non-theist” - our local UU pastor is a “non-theist”.
UUs are no one thing. In most cases, when you walk into a UU church you’ll encounter some Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, non-specific theists, non-theistic spiritual people, agnostics and maybe occasionaly a materialist-atheist.
What unites them isn’t the vertical (man-to-God) belief but the horizontal (person-to-person) dimension of religious practice. They don’t tell you what to believe; they encourage you to work for the good of humanity, inspired by whatever it is you believe.
Serious George: That’s a good one.
Perhaps the best line I’ve heard about the UUs is: It’s where you can go to have your answers questioned.
DCLawyer at #15: The idea that atheists have “all the mainline denominations” is absurd and insulting. Evidently no one is Christian unless s/he subscribes to the world according to HSK. Throw out all the mainlines and Catholics and Christianity becomes very small indeed.
I am sure Harrison thought his dig was very, very clever.
As an agnostic I wouldn’t waste my time sitting in a chair or pew to discuss humanism, inspiration etc. Since all can be questioned why bother contemplate especially in a group. Group Think too closely resembles a Bush war planning meeting for my tastes.
As for Harrison’s post, someone didn’t have enough fun in high school.
“I know my humor is outrageous when it makes the Unitarians so mad they burn a question mark on my front lawn.” — Lenny Bruce
I originally heard this stuff on the Prairie Home Companion Joke Show - they always have Unitarian jokes - but just found a great online source: http://www.firstunitariantoronto.org/uu_humour.htm
Check out the Gilbert & Sullivan re-write, “I am the Very Model of a Modern Unitarian” - Quite Good!
Also good with lots of overlap:
http://stoney.sb.org/uujokes.html