So would that be *unt with a Big 'C' or a little 'c'?

So I was dining with my beautiful daughters tonight at some west-side chain restaurant. The place was virtually deserted, but the host inexplicably sat us next to a family of five (Mom, Dad, three tots) eating with an elderly gentleman (probably about as old as the Dad's dad, still able to get around, not decrepit, but retired). All is well and good, until eventually they started talking about someone working at Edgewood College. "It's a very liberal college, it may be a Christian school, but we're talking about a very small 'c.'"

I know this is nothing new, but this is one of those communication practices that gets me all pissy (as you may recall). So what my dear elderly friend was saying was that a good christian (notice the type case) couldn't possibly be a liberal, and a liberal has no place within Christianity (again, type case). This is no doubt the kind of guy that is going to go out and vote for McPalin (certainly his right, but I would guess he probably had his doubts before Palin was brought on board), because of his incompatible world-view. But what about his world-view? Does his narrow scope extend beyond Christianity? For instance, what about Hindus? Are the only good Hindus conservative? What about fundamentalist Muslims (using one definition from a conservative source yields us a person that adheres to strict cultural traditions with very limited Government oversight. Sounds a lot like the the theocracies of the Middle East to me), are they God's favored children because of their Conservative world view?

I know this sounds bitter, and I understand that this does nothing for discourse. But I just can't understand how these exclusionary principles help anybody. I know how it is when we get in our groups of friends, sometimes there's talk about the archetypal religious redneck that will refuse to vote for Barack Obama, but we understand that's not the majority of the people voting for McCain. Just as I hope this gentleman understands that not everyone that is voting for Barack is a gay atheist (or gaytheist).

Just a thought.

The Deacon

Pat Condell is S-M-R-T...

You can use the little arrows underneath the video player to turn off the captions...sorry it's so big (that's what she said).

Two posts in one day, I'm spoiling you.

I've seen some of Pat's videos on the Internets before but this one really spoke to me (I know I sound like a stupid Yankee asshole, but I really want him to say "a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat"). This video makes a great point on the difference between Spirituality and Religion, a point I think is important and profound (a point I tried to make here).

Pat calls his work "Godless Comedy;" The first few videos I saw I thought to myself 'okay we get it you don't believe in God,' but the more I see of his work, the more I realize that he is an atheist that has great respect for faith (really he calls it spirituality, and I'll stick to my verbiage). What he doesn't like (as is made clear in the video) is Religion (the established pillar that preaches without Dogma there is nothing). Instead of seeing the church as a threat, he sees it as a hurdle that mankind must overcome in order to reach a higher plain.

Good stuff.

Reason and Belief: Thoughts on communication practices

I am notoriously agnostic. Actually I am able to identify better with the atheist movement than anything else, but I do not call myself an atheist. As fellow Deacon and co-music director of the Church of What's Happening Now, Ian has noted: we share a natural disposition to be frustrated by wishy-washy people, but when it comes to the question of God we (at least I) find it almost noble. Now I suppose that raises the point of that making us wishy-washy, but that's another question better left for another post.

But one thing I notice by the fundamentalists of the atheist and the theist camps is that there is a tendency to use reason (or science) as a term that is the opposite of belief (or religion, or God). It's natural to think this way when we are confronted by it at all turns. Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life is my favorite example. Do you think that those that identify themselves as "Pro-Life" are constantly living their lives as though life is paramount to all things? Of course they don't all believe that. I point to the tired example of pro-life proponents that are advocates for the death penalty. This is one example of people using polarizing language and thought patterns but don't think about the consequences of the language they use.

Richard Dawkins, Bill O'Reilly, Ben Stein (stay-the fuck-tuned), Sam Hitchens, all of these men use this same communication habit, and when people attempt to engage in honest dialog about religion, they fall into the same trap. This isn't to say that faith or reason aren't real things with real qualities on both sides, just that they don't seem to be antonyms in my mind.

Do reason and faith intersect? I think it's clear that there are important people in each field that are being ignored to make way for the fundamentalists. There is no reason that these two fields cannot be related, or that one can have utter faith in one over the other. But the habit of saying faith vs. reason, or science vs. God, as though these two things are mutually exclusive is pathetic and unreasonable.

Look, I'm not trying to say that I have a better answer than anyone else, but living as though science doesn't exist is ignorant and wrong. And as Trey Parker (creator of South Park) put it (through Stan Marsh) "Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?" I'm not convinced, and I've read some of Dawkins' stuff
and haven't found anything that suggests the existence of God is completely out of the question. But again this is probably left for a different post.

Here's my point: these terms are not used to benefit either movement, they are just meant to tear the other one down. That is no way to construct positive communication, but that should surprise no one. Neither side seems to want to convince anyone that they are right, just that another side is wrong.