Atheists and Christians protest Pulpit Freedom Sunday

I have no problem if various congregations are able to talk about who to vote for and how their faith applies to different positions. But if they do that, they must be treated as any other partisan group would, and be dropped from non-profit status.

. . . otherwise any political organization could call itself a "church" and become a tax-exempt charity organization.

Just as government entities can't engage in religious favoritism, religious institutions that enjoy non-profit status shouldn't engage in political favoritism.

Who would want to go to a church that teams up with the atheists and agnostics. I know I wont be going to Collegiate United Methodist Church. Over come your differences and team up on an issue, however, this appears as endorsement of atheists and agnostics. I know John Wesley wouldn't have endorsed atheists or agnostics. John Wesley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia What a disgrace at evangelicals . . .

Mr. Beau, it was expected that some people would have such a response, although you have the dubious honor of being first.

I won't speak for Pastor Jim, but I don't think our joint protest counts as "endorsement of atheists and agnostics", whatever that means. Members of the Atheist and Agnostic Society certainly didn’t see it as “endorsement of Christians”. Instead, both of our groups are simply accepting other world views, which isn’t bad. In fact, it is very good.

Diversity is one of the greatest resources of our nation. Having people of different faiths, backgrounds, world views, etc means that we have a broader base of ideas, more ways of thinking, than a uniform country would have. When we stay isolated within our respective groups, we learn nothing. When we reach out, open our hearts and minds, we can find that other people have much to teach us. We may even learn about ourselves.

Of course, this diversity comes with complications, and these complications are exactly why the separation of church and state are so important. Imagine that you lived in a society that had a majority of Buddhists. If there was no separation of church and state, such a society could end up with laws based on Buddhism. While laws created by this majority might be good, they would be inappropriate if based solely on religious reasons, because at least some members of the society aren’t Buddhist. We should not be expected to follow laws based on a religion we may or may not subscribe to. Instead, pluralistic societies should base laws and policies on reason, science, or at the very least, morals that everyone holds.

As many Christians are quick to point out, the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution. We can’t get into the heads of the founding fathers, and they left behind writings that can be interpreted in different ways. However, we know that the founding fathers lived in a time when countries in Europe had state churches. We know from their writings that they felt it wrong to force a religion on a citizen as we being done in those countries. One example is in this Jefferson quote: “All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.” I do not think it is unreasonable to conclude that Jefferson thought we should not be forced to obey religious ideals that we do not believe in.

Despite logic and Jefferson, the US experiences a huge influence of religion on the state. Officials effectively have to be Christian to be elected. Preachers tell their congregations how to vote (even if they don’t say a name). Many Christians in the US have been one-issue voters since Roe v. Wade (lately, two-issue voters), leaving other important issues to go unconsidered. This leaves me to wonder what sorts of things might have been accomplished if people thought about things a bit more holistically. I won’t speculate overmuch on what Jesus would or would not want if he was here today, but I think caring for the sick and feeding the hungry might be some of his priorities.

How is it that so many people fail to grasp the idea that no one should be forced to follow biblical law (or any other religious code)? The whole debate is strange and sad to me. Believing in God is one thing, but following literally a book that is 2-3 thousand years old that has been translated multiple times by mere mortals requires faulty logic to say the least. Of course, there are some good lessons in the bible, but they are right next to passages holding ideas that no one in their right mind would think are good today. The New Testament possibly has more value, including Jesus’s teachings of love and acceptance. I often wonder if self-professed followers of Jesus have forgotten that part.

Regarding John Wesley, I don’t agree with your interpretation of his philosophy. He advocated love of others, which implies acceptance of others, not rejection. He would have tried to convert us, but wouldn’t have rejected us outright as you have done. I’m especially interested in Wesley’s Quadrilateral. He taught that Scripture needed to be interpreted through Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Wouldn’t Wesley then use Reason and Experience today in consideration of things like evolution, stem cell research, and homosexuality, if he were with us today? I could be wrong, but Wesley doesn’t seem like a biblical literalist. He seems like someone who looked into the bible to find truth, not just facts. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.

To specifically address your comment: I sincerely hope you are not making the assumption that all atheists and agnostics are immoral. While there is no dogma, most non-religious people follow a humanistic philosophy. This philosophy emphasizes the dignity and value of each person, and betterment of self through reason. It is through reason that we attain understanding of morality. If you would like to learn more about atheism, agnosticism, secularism, or other non-religious world views, I invite you to attend a meeting of the Atheist and Agnostic Society. Our calendar can be found here: Welcome to the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society

On a more personal note, I’ve been frustrated with religion for years. Despite my attempts to be accepting of others, I had fallen into thinking that most Christians are too closed-minded to even talk to. Meeting Pastor Jim and Campus Minister Chris, along with a few members of the congregation, has made me reconsider. I’m not going to suddenly believe in the supernatural, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t respect people who do. Likewise, people of one religion can respect people of other religions and even people who choose to have no religion. I’m particularly impressed by Chris’s open-mindedness when it comes to Islam, something that is difficult for many of us. From what I know of them, both of these fine people follow Jesus and John Wesley’s teachings very well. In short, you’re missing out.

Sincerely,
Anastasia Bodnar
President of the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society

PS: The pamphlet we handed out at the Pulpit Initiative protest can be found at www.geneticmaize.com/...

I can’t speak for others but I can say why I left a good job and traveled half way around the world to be a part of Collegiate UMC/Wesley Foundation. The God that I understand is one who is about the business of tearing down the walls that divide people. Collegiate/Wesley is a place that is truly trying to be about erasing those lines that divide us. It is a privilege to be associated with a place that welcomes all people. As a person of faith it breaks my heart to see the exclusion of others -for any reason. In fact, it has been this kind of exclusion that has at times in my life left me feeling disillusioned and disconnected from communities of faith. So I’m proud to say I’m a part of a church that allows people to think for themselves, to have questions, and dare I say even have doubts. After all faith is a journey not something you either have or you don’t; we have to be willing to expect that there are other journeyers out there who come to different conclusions than we do. I don’t think that God would have us create groups of insiders and outsiders. After all Jesus was often criticized for the company that he kept, I feel like we are in good company.

Chris Hockley
Campus Ministry Associate
Collegiate UMC/ Wesley Foundation

Anastasia,

I appreciate your reason your authenticity and your sincerity. I believe however that if one holds a worldview that tells him that he has the truth then other worldviews are wrong. I would assume (which might not be a good thing) that the Methodists (here in town) would hold that their worldview is true, and the only correct worldview. As far as belief in God, the need for redemption, Biblical authority etc. Compromising on these things leads to error and falsehood. Which, as a conservative Methodist myself, find horrendous. Endorsement of such compromise leads to being wholly inconsistent and really appearing to stand for nothing?!? I am just trying to wrap my mind around this, thanks for helping me think some things through.

P.S. - I in no way think that atheists/agnostics are immoral. I know for a fact that most are moral people (which seems very inconsistent, how do we know which set of moral values to adhere to? You can't condemn obviously wrong moral behavior such as murder and rape.). It is just that atheists (most) would deny the fact that objective moral values exist (which is something that most Methodists would accept). So it appears that Ames Methodists are endorsing subjective moral values or at least values not based upon Biblical authority (again assuming that Ames Methodists believe the Bible and recognize its authority).

Chris,

Be definition truth is exclusive. Does the Collegiate UMC profess to have the truth?
You said that you dont think that God would have us create groups of insiders and outsiders. But naturally those who don't have the truth would be "outsiders" until they have come to believe the truth. In the Old Testament God had his covenant people, Israel, those who were outside of Israel then would be outside of God's people. How should I handle this? Also, it seems if there is one way to God (which most Methodists would profess) then there must be some outsiders since some don't follow this way. How do you handle this? Thanks for helping me to process these issues.

First off, thanks to my friend Anastasia for her thoughtful response to Mr. Beau’s comments. It’s been great to get to know her and several other members of ISU’s Atheist and Agnostic Society. I see my colleague Chris has already responded to Bob as well, but, I’ve already written a response too, so here goes…

Dear Bob...you opened your comments with a GREAT question…”who would want to go to a church that teams up with the atheists and agnostics?”.

Actually, a LOT of people “go to” Collegiate UMC if by “go to” you mean:
+worship in one of four distinctly different settings each week
+participate in and support all sorts of mission and service/learning activities at the local,regional, domestic and international levels
+seek a deeper relationship with God made known to us in the life and teachings of Jesus via Christian education opportunities for all ages throughout the week
+care for those who are hurting, oppressed, broken, grieving, in search of community, healing and hope
+praise God through an amazing variety of music groups, in styles from ancient to the most contemporary
+find a safe place to be themselves, to ask questions and share their thoughts without fear of being belittled, ridiculed or condemned
+step outside their comfort zones to learn about others who may think, act and believe in different ways so understanding and peace might prevail
+welcome EVERYONE to participate with NO circles of exclusion

Here’s a short list of others who might “go to” Collegiate/Wesley if they knew more about this congregation and campus ministry:
+People who have felt excluded by churches which have told them, based on their background, questions, doubts or experiences, that they don’t fit in or that they’re going to hell
+People who have pushed churches aside because they perceive Christianity has lost touch with life in the 21st century
+People who would like to meet Christians who break the stereotypes of being closed-minded, hateful, homophobic and hypocritical
+People who are looking for a safe place to be themselves as, through honest questioning and deep discussion, they seek to find God.

Bob, you wrote “this appears as endorsement of atheists and agnostics”. Endorse is a tricky word, , especially in this presidential election season. We certainly did “team up with” the Atheist and Agnostic Society (AAS) to speak out against “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”. While there (and in other discussions before and after) we talked and laughed and discussed our various understandings and points of view on lots of issues. We joked that maybe people would pay more attention to us if we were yelling and fighting (but we didn’t).

Just what does “endorse” mean for you, Bob? Certainly I “endorse” the students from AAS as people…I endorse them as entitled to their views. I endorse them as having every right to speak those views and, when those views line up with mine, I endorse joining forces with them to make an even stronger statement about an issue than perhaps either of our groups might have made individually.

If by “endorse” you mean “agree with everything they say” then no, Bob, I don’t endorse the AAS. It’d probably be tough to do that since I’m sure there’s not complete agreement within their group, not a concise list of "doctrines". I think you’d find a wide range of opinions among their members (AND within our campus ministry, for that matter). Those kinds of things (healthy disagreement and diverse understandings) happen where people feel free to think on their own, to ask questions, to raise doubts, to not just “believe as they’re told”.

What would the OPPOSITE of “endorse” be for you, Bob? Condemn? Ostracize? Hate? I’m afraid that doesn’t work for me.

I appreciate your directing me (and others) to Wikipedia’s John Wesley page, Bob. Wesley was a fascinating man and had much to tell us about living the life of Christian discipleship. I was born into this denomination, love it and agree with MUCH of what it is all about (FAR beyond what one might read on Wiki). However, as much as I admire John Wesley, I’m infinitely more concerned about following the way of Jesus and I think he’d be ok with me hangin’ out with, listening to, sharing with and caring for these folks…and you.

I’ll leave you with this John Wesley quote…"If we cannot think alike, at least we may love alike"

Jim Shirbroun, Campus Pastor
Collegiate United Methodist Church/Wesley Foundation (the United Methodist Student Center)

Jim,

I can think of many reasons to go to and be involved in church! I agree with all the ones you listed. As a matter of fact I agree with nearly everything you said. Everyone should feel free to thikn on their own and ask questions, or raise doubts. It is foolish to believe as your told without checking it out for yourself. I don't find anything wrong with listening to, sharing, and caring for anyone! My only point is that it seems inconsistent to team up with people who according to the evangelical interpretation (and no offense meant to ANYONE) represent the antithesis of truth. I don't see Jesus in the scriptures teaming up with the pharisees to spread the word about Old Testament awareness although undoubtedly (as we see in scripture) He believed and endorsed (supported the teachings of) the Old Testament. He didn't team up with them to get the word out about God the Father/levitical laws/Torah memorization etc. I think we should love others and help guide them to the truth. I hope this is the reason that the UMC exists. However, loving others does NOT mean supporting their behavior and tolerating acts which are contrary to Scripture. People can come and discuss and ask questions and find answers without fear of personal condemnation. I don't think we should team up with groups that attempt to undermine what we know is true. God loves us all including atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, heterosexuals, pastors, murderers, tax collectors, priests, adulterers etc. this does NOT mean that he supports (positively reinforces) and enjoys all of their (our) behavior. Let me know what you think. Also, Thanks for the response.

At the gay rights debate Sunday evening, I heard some individuals referring to atheists as "anti-God," and I hear that sentiment echoed by some of the comments on this post. I think in the case of most atheists, this couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, we are "a-God," simply without God.

Atheism, at least for me, does not mean not having a set of morals. I stand for many things, and I have consistent values. What it does mean, is that we, as human beings and thinkers, do not NEED written scripture to determine right in wrong. It is a belief and understanding that we are, in fact, self-empowered to make that determination. Does every one of us consistently agree? Of course not, but no one could ever make the case that religiously-dictated values are any more consistent. I would actually argue that it is often beliefs based on interpretation of ancient scripture that impede the evolution of morals in our society. Many atrocities, past and present, are committed in the name of God, but there are NO examples of atrocities committed in the name of atheism. Not all atheists are good people, but being atheism does not make anyone a bad person. And, as an example, atheists would never avoid association with another group because of their beliefs (unless they feared discrimination by that group).

It really concerns me when I hear comments like Bob's... "what we know is true." You don't know it; you believe it. There is a difference, and I think it's important to recognize that. Ultimately, I think it's great that these two groups could work together. They really do not oppose each other. I get the sense from you, Bob, that you believe that they do--that the church should not cooperate with a group like the atheists because of their contrary beliefs. I would suggest you really think about how inclusive you can be of all these groups you believe God loves, when you yourself would avoid any cooperation with them. It's that notion that you have to protect yourself from having your beliefs even questioned or challenged that makes so many individuals feel that religion is hostile.

Just some food for thought since the gay rights debate on the other article died down.

Zack,

Thanks for your input, I would just like to mention that in my previous comments to UMC I said "what we know is true." because a christian would say that what he believes is true. Hence my statement we know it is true. I believe it is true and I have never found any evidence contrary to that . . . of course this is not the point of our comments here so I will not go into that. I am simply trying to decide if a church should get in league with the AAS or some other group with beliefs that are opposed. Also, any Christian would say that someone who characterizes themselves as "a-God" is automatically "anti-God". The Bible clearly tells us that you are either for God or against Him. I just wanted to let you know how a christian would evaluate that. We believe that God exists and has revealed Himself through the Bible. Hence we call the Bible "Gods Word". This is the main reason why we go to the Bible to find out how God has spoken on particular issues. So, we believe that its not the scriptures that determine what is right or wrong but it is God. He conveyed it to us through the Bible. If God exists (as I think many good arguments show) then we should seek to do as He wishes, for He controls our eternal destiny. That's how the Christian worldview approaches things. I just thought I would share that with you so you know where most of us are coming from. Thanks for your input on this issue.

Bob,

First, thank you for making me think. It's good and healthy for our world views to be challenged.

Morals based on reason are no less consistent than morals based on religion. Interestingly, reason brings many secular people to the same morals, generally based on "loving others as yourself". I personally consider some morals to be universal, possibly because they are necessary for humans to interact and prosper together, thus developed through evolution. That may sound wrong to you, but it's essentially another way to explain "objective" morals. Some might say that God worked through evolution to acheive moral beings.

Truth is not exclusive, especially in the religious sense. The Bible is true for some people, just as the Koran or the Vedas are true for others. My source of truth is reason, not faith, but I acknowledge that humans can find truth in many ways.

Let me put this another way: when I speak with a religious person, I may find commonalities. I may even "endorse" her, and by endorsement I mean acknowledgement that she has a right to beleive as she does, or that she is worthy to call friend. To cooperate with her in the interests of a shared goal, I don't have to compromise my world view in any way. Although, I have to open my mind and heart to accept that this person does not beleive as I do.

How is rejecton of people who do not beleive as you do consistent with "loving others as yourself"? You argue that acceptance of others would compromise your beliefs, but it seems to me that rejection of others is the larger compromise. Which is more important - Jesus's acceptance of others or the Old Testament's drawing lines between tribes? Finally, you say that Christians seek to do as God wishes, but how can you know? Maybe it is God's will for his people to live in peace and cooperation with all of his children, even the weird ones.

I am anti-religion sometimes, when religion guides people to rejection and hatred instead of acceptance and love. I wonder if people would have those negative feelings if it wasn't for their religion. However, this isn't the same as being anti-God. To be blunt, how can one be against something that doesn't exist? I'm not anti-unicorns ;)

And on that note, I must sleep.

Anastasia,
I understand that we could debate these issues all day long. That's why my questions were mainly aimed at the UMC folks. I am trying to understand how as Christians we should handle fellowship with those who believe opposite of us.
You did say a few things that I would like to comment on though. You say truth is not exclusive. I can NOT imagine how my field of science would operate on the same principle. If you define truth as what corresponds to reality then it can only be exclusive. You might argue that everyone has their own reality . . . this is a philosophical assumption that is rejected by most scholars today. That principle would not work in a field of science either because then we have no reason not to publish other scientists work (no matter how inaccurate or fabricated it may be), the peer review system is meaningless and true science would be lost.
"loving others as yourself" does not mean accepting their behavior. Jesus Himself did not accept the behavior of the Pharisees or of Satan for that matter. He was the one that said we should love our neighbor as ourselves and without a doubt He did love the Pharisees and others. It is possible to love a person and not accept their behavior (see many alcoholics and domestic abuse cases etc.).
As Christians we can know what God wishes by reading His word. I don't expect you to understand or agree with this. There are many "Christians" who would not agree with this, but that's why I say "Christians".
I don't think people should have hatred for others and indeed true religion would not espouse such a notion. I would be anti-religion if that's what was going on as well.
As far as how we can be against something that doesn't exist, I happen to think that there are a few good arguments out there for the existence of God. For example:
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause
I think that cause is God.
The jury is still out on the unicorns . . . lol
Thanks for listening/reading.

Bob, if it's okay, I'd like to jump in with a few thoughts.

I agree with your points about science and how science depends on exclusive truths. We can use research to decipher truths and apply theories to confirm truth. It's how we know that gravity keeps us on the earth and lungs are for breathing. As Allan Johnson points out, there are some truths that cannot be scientifically proven, but that have significant amounts of evidence we can rely on. (For example, I can't prove scientifically that being a slave on a plantation was a terrible experience, but I have a lot of evidence to support that claim.) So, I agree, there are many truths in this world that are exclusive, or as close to exclusive as we can prove.

That being said, I think we, as individuals, have to be very careful about how we define the truths that we see in our own lives. I'm echoing here what I mentioned before about "knowing" vs. "believing." One of the challenges I have with religious beliefs is that they only work because they are self-fulfilling. You've stated that you think the cause of the universe is God, but by your own scientific principles, you have nothing to support that except your beliefs. If God caused the universe to exist, what caused God to exist? It's a valid question, I think, and the answer I've often heard is something like "God is infinite" or "God always was," but those answers abandon the underlying scientific principles of logic and reason.

Another question to consider: Do you believe in God because He exists, or does God exist because you believe in Him? I expect your answer would be the former, since you have asserted that God exists in some of your posts. But, the substantiation you essentially depend on is that you "know" God exists because that is your belief. You can see how the logic kind of gets lost in this loop. If you had never been taught/convinced/suggested/indoctrinated/etc. with the idea that you should believe in God, then the "Christian" God would seem as unrealistic as Zeus, unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think most atheists would admit that we can never know what we can never know, assuming such knowledge could exist. If it's beyond our human capacity, then we can never do anything about it. Essentially, an atheist can only be a 99.99999999% non-believer, because from a logical point of view, we can admit there might be knowledge or understanding beyond our capacity to know or understand. BUT, all of the evidence and reason that we do have at our disposal inclines us to believe that there is no such greater knowledge. When examined from the perspective of religion as a social construction, there is not even a good reason to believe in something supernatural except that that is the expectation our society has established.

As Anastasia and I have pointed out, though, moral reasoning and faith do not have to come from a belief in something "greater." Charity and good will and hope are all things that atheists still hold as values. I would even contend that it is "easier" for us to determine our morals, because there are less factors to consider. This, in many ways, reflects how liberals and conservatives approach moral reasoning differently, if you'll allow a comparison. The liberal/atheist perspective focuses mostly on the notions of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, so issues such as inequality or exploitation are important. Conservatives/committed theists do value harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, but ALSO value ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. In a very cliche way, gay marriage and abortion illustrate this well: liberals see rights being denied to the LGBT community and women; conservatives place more importance on valuing tradition, patriarchal authority, and the "sanctity" of life. Neither is bad or wrong, and each has consequences. Much in the same way, atheists construct our morals without loyalty to a religion, concern for the authority of a God or interpretations of ancient texts, or a notion of "sanctity," but arrive at many of the same values of love and compassion merely from a logical understanding of care and regard.

So, Bob, I want to encourage you to really think about WHY you are uncomfortable around people who have different beliefs. Is it because their actual values are different, or merely because their APPROACH to those values is different from (and thus challenges) yours?

For more insights on the whole liberal vs. conservative moral reasoning I was talking about, check out this article: faculty.virginia.edu/...