Response to ‘Why Atheism+ Should Lead to Interfaith Dialogue’

Boy, did Be Scofield catch the Atheism Plus bus about three months too late.

In his column, “Why Atheism+ Should Lead to Interfaith Dialogue,” he rehashes how Jen McCreight called for a “third wave” of atheism and how the A+ “movement” has caught fire online. Of course, he failed to mention that A+ is about as done as burnt toast at this point. Skeptically Left summarized the beginning of the end quite fittingly with this gem:

Its (Atheism+) fate was sealed when optimistic supporter, Matt Dillahunty, President of the Atheist Community of Austin and Host of Non-Prophet Radio got banned from the A+ forums in an attempt to show that those forums were fair to outsiders. To make a long story short, he quickly found out that they weren’t.

In any case, in Johhny Come Lately fashion, Scofield proceeds to tell us how Atheism Plus, and presumably atheists at large, should welcome a partnership with “progressive religious organizations” to move social justice forward:

I applaud all of those who have already laid out their visions and ideas about where this movement can go. There is, however one important question that has yet to be addressed. The answer to it could have profound ramifications for the future of atheism in all of its expressions. How will Atheism+ affect atheists’ relationship to religion?

Well, that is certainly is a question that I don’t think has been asked up to this point, mostly because many nonbelievers like myself have not only moved on from religion, but have moved past it. Way past it. Of course, to understand why Scofield raised such a question to begin with, one must understand that Scofield has been working on a master’s of divinity from Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley. I don’t know what a master’s of divinity is either, other than a faux-degree that has no meaning or value in a world free of religion and theology.

Atheism Plus’s slow demise makes most of Scofield’s article completely irrelevant, but let’s pretend that it doesn’t for a minute. Or, better yet, let’s pretend that instead of talking about A+ specifically, let’s just say that he might, in similar fashion, call for cooperation on social justice issues between “progressive” believers and run of the mill atheists, freethinkers or secular humanists. What then? What would such a partnership look like? Scofield asks us to consider a few questions:

Will (atheists) … be willing, in the name of social justice, to form new alliances, coalitions and networks with progressive religious organizations and people who are interested? Engage in interfaith dialogue? Explore the rich justice based traditions found within most any religious group? Soften the antagonistic rhetoric to advance the common good? Learn about the liberation based and prophetic teachings in religion and why they matter to people resisting injustice?

“Justice based traditions” found in most religions? Does he mean human sacrifice? How about stoning? Or eternal punishment by fire and brimstone for ever and ever? I can’t speak for everyone, but I dare say that even Atheism Plus supporters chafe when considering the “justice” of most religions. And what is that about the “liberation based and prophetic teachings” of religion? What does that have to do with issues of social justice? Certain religions teach liberation from this world, but most of the time, it is a type of liberation at the damning expense of millions of others who don’t follow that particular denomination or sect. Does he mean enlightenment ideas found in Buddhism? Maybe, but that’s more about personal enrichment than helping people on a broad scale have more fulfilling lives and supporting egalitarian principles. Further, how could the phony prophetic teachings of religion add anything to the conversation about social justice?

Scofield concludes:

Atheism+ is an exciting movement. I’m looking forward to seeing it grow and evolve. We can use this opportunity to bridge divided worlds, build interfaith coalitions and make social justice campaigns stronger. Imagine the Atheism+ movement and progressive religious groups united in solidarity against the real enemies: oppression, injustice and indifference!

Atheism+ is about as exciting as a rendition of “Taps.” In some ways, “progressive” or “liberal” Christians or other religious people are worse than evangelicals because while evangelicals are at least being honest when they tell you straight up that you are bound for an eternity in hell, progressive Christians want to gloss over the nasty bits about their religion, or redact them altogether, to make themselves and their faith appear less brutal and arcane than it actually is. Of course, Scofield’s last sentence is almost laughable since religion has at one time or another (indeed, throughout most of its history) gleefully supported both oppression and injustice, so for it to now make an about-face seems like a stretch. I certainly would hope that these “progressive” believers continue on a path more focused on social justice than dogma and divisiveness, but that will take place in spite of religion, not because of it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Obama, the peace prize and country

Much has been said and written today about the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to President Barack Obama, from Michelle Malkin’s spastic, right-of-right, true-to-form fragmentary post on the subject, to the Huffington Post’s more rosey view of the man. This BBC story attempts to give a sweeping view of some of the sentiments coming from the American media on the announcement.

Obama is the third sitting president to have been given the honor, followed by Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. Jimmy Carter has also won it, but that award came 20 or so years after he left office. Al Gore has as well.

I think this award, more than anything else, amounts to Obama being perceived in much of Europe as the “un-Bush,” as David Ignatius of The Washington Post dubbed it, perhaps fueled, in part, by his speech Sept. 23 to the U.N. General Assembly, and his speech in Cairo, and in his speech on race, and his diplomatic policies, his reaching out to the Muslim world, and, finally, his stance on nuclear nonproliferation. As Ignatius notes,

That’s what he’s being honored for, really: reconnecting America to the world and making us popular again. If you want to understand the sentiments behind the prize, look at the numbers in the Transatlantic Trends report released last month by the German Marshall Fund. Obama’s approval rating in Germany: 92 percent compared to 12 percent for George Bush. His approval in the Netherlands: 90 percent compared to 18 percent for Bush. His favorability rating in Europe overall (77 percent) was much higher than in America (57 percent).

Some, of course, like Dick Cheney, would argue that it doesn’t matter whether we are popular. It matters that we are safe. But, unless our plan is to continue our imperialistic ways forever, I think it does matter, and is a good thing, if other, respected countries within the global community think we are on the right track internationally. No good at all can surely come from being disliked by most of the industrialized, modern countries of the world, as we were under the last woeful administration.

This award, in truth, is not about any one thing Obama has done, for he hasn’t done much on the global stage. It’s about an ideal for a more globally connected America. And while some will cry foul and say many of  the other 200-something candidates were actually doing hard, hands-on work to promote peace, I do believe that this award says more about this country than this president, signifying the stunning reversal from the last administration’s G.I. Joe approach to foreign matters to our election of a diplomat. The Nobel Prize committee, using any rational, could never give this award to Obama based on any tangible accomplishments (and Obama admits this), but as he said, it’s a “call to action.”

Some, like this YouTube user, wrongly suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize committee’s decision was “apparently made just after the president took office.” (One can gauge this person’s level of credibility by noticing the channel he happens to be watching in this video.) No. In fact, nomination submissions close Feb. 1, but the choice isn’t made until October. Thus, it is true: someone nominated Obama just after his inauguration, but Obama’s leadership through these seven-eight months must have had some impact.

Regardless, as I’ve said, does he deserve it on his own merit? Probably not. And he says so himself. Is it a good thing for our country? Absolutely. John Adams, a founder whom I’m come to revere greatly, saw, not only the importance of believing in his “country,” but also recognized the importance of being respected on the world’s stage. If we aren’t, we’re cowboys. Though Cheney and Bush would seemingly have it no other way, the era of cowboys and gunslinging is long gone, and we must move with, not against or in spite of, other sovereign, modern, democratic nations.