[Peace-discuss] RE: The Christmas He Dreamed for All of Us

[Morton K. Brussel]

Carl and others: Let me explain why I recommended that the current  
discussion relating to Christianity not be continued on the peace-list.

As many of you know, I am an atheist,  I don't believe in any gods,  
nor the moral perfection of anyone including the prophets.  I don't  
believe in hell and heaven, original sin, salvation, in life after  
death, etc. I believe in none of the mythology and miracles of any of  
the religions, although I can easily subscribe to certain of their  
moral precepts, those precepts which are not different from what most  
rational and empathetic people believe, irrespective of their  
religion  or non religion. It doesn't take religion to be empathetic,  
to treat others as you would want to be treated, to have a social  
conscience, to take pleasure in the arts, nature, to wonder about the  
magnificence of human achievement or of the natural world, etc..

Saying that I am an atheist does not, however, mean that I am  
"against" "religion" (we have really to define what we mean here); I  
believe that folks should be free to profess whatever they want (as  
long as it doesn't impose harmfully on the freedoms of others). I  
hope I am tolerant (save against intolerance). In other words, I  
subscribe to such enlightenment principles on which our constitution  
and bill of rights was founded --including separation of church and  
state.

I don't feel it is proper to get into an argument/discussion on the  
peace-list about why I feel religion is not for me. I don't aim to  
convert anyone to my ideas, although I would pleased if my reasons  
for not "believing" would be compelling and useful to others. I even  
think the world would be better for it. But I'm laissez-faire on  
this: I am happy to talk about what I think, but I don't mean to  
proselytize, however inadvertently, on the peace lists, and I don't  
like it when others toot their religious horns on the list. On the  
other hand, when issues like war, peace and racism are involved, I  
would like everyone to join the fold --against  war, racism (and  
other things listed in the mission statement of AWARE). I believe we  
can all work together on this. I don't believe that promoting  
religion per se on the list helps in our common quest for a better,  
more humane, sustainable world. Discussing how we can all come  
together, however , is of course a worthwhile and important objective.

I had been tempted to join in in the discussion, for example, on the  
question as to why in this country Christianity is regarded by some  
as a threat. It is a legitimate question, but I didn't think that it  
would help in our anti-war, anti-occupation, anti-empire, anti-  
racism, anti-corporate-globablization,…, efforts.

Mine is a minority position, and therefore I am perhaps particularly  
sensitive to these issues.

Am I making myself clear? I like discussion, but we ought to limit, I  
think, the discussion to topics manifestly pertinent to the peace- 
discuss list. There is too much to discuss, as is, for most people.

Mort




On Jan 4, 2006, at 2:47 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> "Etherealness"? Is that the problem, Mort?  Remember that a
> majority of the members of the Christian movement are not
> Fundamentalists. (Of course, as with any organization that's
> been around for "2000 years of experience," the majority of
> its members are dead.)  But your theological reputation
> continues to grow, and not just through the pages of the
> News-Gazette, when you raise such subtle questions as, "Is
> spirituality the same as salvation?" (Damned if I know.)
>
> It does however surprise me that this is at least the second
> time that you've seemed to call for an end to this discussion.
> Do you in fact think it inappropriate?  Why?  I would have
> said that the problem with the discussion with the Pentecostal
> vet is that it didn't go on long enough or involve enough
> people.  I think we need more of what you nicely characterize
> as "fruitful arguing."
>
> Regards, CGE
>
> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:37:07 -0600
>> From: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com>
>>
>> There seems to be no fruitful arguing with fundamentalist
> believers;
>> they simply follow their own "Little Red Book", and nothing
> that 2000
>> years of experience teaches or that the evolution of knowledge
>> reveals dissuades them.
>>
>> IMHO, there is too much weird (to me) etherealness [God,
> salvation,
>> saviour,…?] and distortion [AWARE members are not interested in
>> dialog with church members?]  or evasion of substantial
> issues (Is
>> "spirituality" the same as "salvation"?) in this discussion
> for it to
>> be worth the time of AWARE. It recalls to mind the problem that
>> "presence" members had in trying to talk to the veteran
> outside the
>> Urbana Assembly of God two Sundays ago. So I hope that  this
>> argumentation will not be prolonged.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss