Can't hope to compete with Street Prophets
The popular everything-about-religion site Beliefnet has launched a new blogging site for religious progressives called "Progressive Revival."

The Obama menace 1
The Obama menace 2
The Obama menace 3
The Obama menace 4

This started as a response to a comment in one of the recent threads, but it hit me that what I was saying got to the core of something that's been bugging me for a while.  Quite a while.

The "here" in my title refers strictly to Street Prophets, not the world in general.  So, please click on the link to this picture, and contemplate it for a minute.  Then follow me across the jump.

This is Part I of a pair of diaries ... "Faith" is probably a far more interesting diary than "Atheism," but I couldn't write Part 2 without first writing Part 1.

So, lately I've found myself becoming an angry atheist. (If you're going to take offense at reading a diary by an angry atheist, you should probably just stop now.)

Richard Dawkins (Boo! Hiss! Kill the unbeliever!) mentioned this new decalogue in The God Delusion. The link goes into quite a bit of detail explaining thee points, so here's a summary of the "commandments:"

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you
2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.
3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
6. Always seek to be learning something new.
7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
10. Question everything.

Thoughts?

This might be a good time to remind people that religious faith is not a measure of patriotism.

Also, this guy.

I was going to jump into the Monique Davis fracas a few weeks back, but since there seemed to be enough people who participated I felt I could safely not be missed if I kept to myself.

But now I have my own story. I'm really here just to vent; to be heard. I don't know if I want advice, because that was precisely my problem, I did not in this case.

My cousin, who lives two miles from here, came to visit me for the first time in the three years since my father died, the second time in the six years I have lived here. She was at his memorial, a year later she and her mother specifically invited me to a memorial dedicated to all those who had died in the previous year, knowing that I am an atheist, and practically so was my father.

I'm a screwed up mess because of religion.

On a semi-related note to the Religion and Media discussion below, I wanted to pass on what I thought was an excellent analysis of what causes sparks between believers and free-thinkers* in the public square.

In a 2005 article titled "Religion in the Public Sphere", the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas lays out an argument concerning faith's proper role in political discourse. If you don't feel like wading through his paper, you can see a fair synopsis at the Immanent Frame.

Here's an even skinnier version: Habermas begins with a critique of John Rawls' assessment of religion's place in a liberal democracy. Rawls at first thought that only secular reasoning had any place in democratic government. Later he backed off on that claim, arguing that religious reasons for political decisions were allowable, on the condition that they be translated into secular logic. Thus, saying "God commands us to be good stewards of the Earth" is not acceptable, but "We need to preserve the Earth so future generations can survive" is fine.

Continuing the conversation we began yesterday on the recent Religion and Media study, let's take a look at this proposition:

The atheism movement garnered considerable media attention as a growing movement in the U.S. and Western Europe. In response to Muslim and Christian fundamentalism, non-believers are becoming vocal on the convergence of faith and politics.

I don't know enough about "the atheism movement" to say if it's growing or not. I do know enough to say the idea of a coordinated program among atheists is pretty funny. They can't even agree on what they should be called, much less how they're going to change the world. But it is true that American society is becoming less religious, though the extent to which that's a result of dis-affiliation or of anti-theistic sentiment has long been a topic of debate.

It's also difficult to say whether or not atheism has been getting more media attention lately. For one thing, the studies story breakdowns don't include authorship by belief for obvious reasons. So it's impossible to know if an article cited on Islam and terrorism was written by an imam or Sam Harris. Beyond that, I've heard conflicting stories. It's true that books by Harris, Richard Dawkins, and a raft of others have created more splash than they might have in the past. And certainly, the internet has become a "safe space" for atheism and atheism. As well, more people seem comfortable in confessing no confession in their personal lives. As a society, we seem to be dropping some of the pretenses around religion.

But my atheist friends tell me it's as bad as it ever was out there, that the "new" atheism is just the same old stuff repackaged, that not much has changed. So it may be that this is just a cycle of journalism: every few years, the media discovers or re-discovers that there are these strange people who don't actually believe in God.

And everybody gets offended, there's a terrible uproar about the declining standards of Western Civilization, some pissy books are written back and forth, and eventually it all gets forgotten about - until the next time.

So you all tell me if this is an accurate assessment of the state of play. Are atheists a growing movement? Are they getting more attention? Educate me.

Here is my (sorta) weekly tour of the internet - and some things that struck me as interesting:

Look, I know y'all would rather read another Dungeons and Dragons diary. I'd rather be writing one.

Apparently, however, I need to get this out of the way first.

I very much do not want to talk about my religious beliefs. For one thing, it is the very stereotype of the self-indulgent blogger. For another, I'm not entirely certain what those beliefs are - they certainly don't fit Christianity or any other organized religion, and the closest terms, atheist and agnostic, don't really fit either.

The gripping hand is, it's against my beliefs to discuss my beliefs. What kind of arrogant hubris does it take to proclaim, "This is how it is", and then go around telling people that they are wrong for not believing the same? Plus, I have poor social skills and tend to piss people off - although I in no way intended to, that last bit could be interpreted as me calling people of faith arrogant.

But, to the point. To sum up: I cannot believe that the God of my fathers, the God that I have grown up being told about by my fellow travelers in this cherry-blossom World, exists. And I envy you that you are able to.

The energetic promotion of the upcoming Evolution Sunday by these mostly liberal churches and their clergy is evidence that increasing numbers of religious believers are embracing the truth that a values-neutral scientific method poses no threat to living religion.

Great to live in times when a portion of the people of faith are not restrained by their leaders from the blessings of unending knowledge and discovery.  Also great to see evidence of the continued demise of the error of assuming that scientific results can threaten the basis of belief in God.  I enjoy the irony of the fact that the same mistaken views on this "scientific threat" are held by both atheists and Fundamentalists.

Among the many interesting links to Resources for Evolution Weekend I noticed that important sermon by Harry Emerson Fosdick, the liberal Baptist, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?"  More beneath the fold.

I came here to talk about things with teeth, because as we know religion and politics being two of the three things polite people don't talk about in public (the other having no shortage of attention) I wanted a place to throw out some red meat and not get banned or followed home.

I wish I could have this discussion at Fox, or RedState, or the Heritage Foundation, but they don't have an open door policy. You do, so I start here, but I didn't want my first act to be a flamethrower and spoil the spirit I was welcomed with.

Mike Huck-a-be-president's comments the other day convinced me it was time to ask the faithful aligned with the D team where I stand. Because if the book of Leviticus becomes law, even Texas is going to have their hands full keeping up with all of the people we will have to put to death.