Recovery From All Religion

Years ago, following several heated exchanges over a joke a moron sent me, I wrote him a nasty email. He said that he did not understand how a practicing Catholic, meaning me, could support a woman’s right to choose. I told “Jim” that I no longer considered myself Catholic, practicing or otherwise. I was not being flippant. I’d made that decision long before he sent me the joke. He didn’t know. I didn’t say I was atheist because I was not saying so at the time, but I wanted to.

At about the same time that I shot “Jim” my epistolary bird, the famous author, Anne Rice, who had previously returned to the good graces of the Catholic Church after about 30 years of rejecting it, declared that she no longer considered herself Christian. Not just no longer Catholic, but not even Christian. She said she was a Humanist who believed in a God.

There’s an old saying, “Once Catholic; always Catholic.” But what does that mean? In Anne’s case, during those 30 years, I could make an argument for exactly that papal idiom. Even when she said, in hindsight, that she had been atheist (more like agnostic or a “none,’ in my opinion), I think Anne was still also Catholic in many ways. For years as a young lady, Anne wanted to be a Catholic priest. She admitted to being angry about being told no.

The old saying could be taken to mean that a person raised in a devout Catholic family and culture (as I was, if Irish-Catholic can be considered devout) will always carry aspects of this heritage, even if he or she (or they) stops practicing the religion.

I do not see this as much of a joke, but in Ireland, there are accounts of people being asked whether they’re Catholic or Protestant. When they reply, “I’m an atheist,” the response is, “Yes, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?” I think I understand. I suppose I could be labeled as Catholic-Atheist. I don’t believe in any God, but I have claimed to.

This “once…always…” declaration may be viewed in terms of human formation within a culture. Because of my background, experience, and former beliefs, I know a lot about the world of Catholicism. But is it possible to stop being “Catholic” even if one renounces the religion or denomination and practices another, as many have?

When I practiced other Christian denominations, I did so as a non-practicing Catholic in the house. Until “Jim” pissed me off, I never openly rejected my Catholic being. If I carry over anything from my papist days, it is guilt and my stern dislike and distrust of clergy and religious orders of any kind.

However, since I claim no god, all religion is pointless. Culture, not so much.

Is it true? Will I always be “Catholic?” It’s a complex, if minor, issue. If by being an apostate, which I am to all Catholic believers, practicing or not, I’ll go to Hell. The Roman Catholic bunch (mostly) would have to agree. Hell is what will happen. They say there is no salvation outside the Church. I ask, exactly what is it that I need to be saved from?

I once saw a bumper sticker that said, you cannot be prochoice (or proabortion) and Catholic. That was “Jim’s” point, but at the time I was certain that I was both. I suppose that such purity thinking fallacy is what Anne Rice had her fill of when she tossed her Christian and Catholic cookies into the trash. To my knowledge, Anne never publicly recanted her Humanist position. So, did she die a Catholic as the “always…” claim would have it, or not?

It is important for me to make clear the reason I am of no religion. It is exclusively because I have concluded that there is no god. It has nothing to do with any specific antipathy I have toward any religion or religious people. I disdain all religion and have no use for it, but I think I understand why people do it, even though there are fewer practitioners of religion every year.

Bill

Trend Watch: Religion

Happy Friday and welcome to the first day of Autumn for the top half of the globe. I was wondering why this word search happened.

Every 30 seconds of everyday, Merriam-Webster dot com tells us the top ten most popular words being looked up in their online dictionary. Based upon news and world events, it usually makes sense.

This is what they say about this feature, “Trend Watch is a data-driven report on words people are looking up at much higher search rates than normal. While most trends can be traced back to the news or popular culture, our focus is on the lookup data rather than the events themselves.”

The other day number ten was the word religion. Why now? Do the people doing the search not know the definition of religion? And why might they care?

Just to be sure, I often look up words that I know how to spell, pronounce, and how to define. I do not constitute a trend. I’m not sure how many it takes to merit the trend list. I have looked up the meaning of religion before. In this case, I wanted the exact dictionary definition.

The three definitions of religion listed are:

1. A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
(a/1): the service and worship of God(s) or the supernatural, or (a/2) the commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
(b): It is the state of a religious (like a nun in her 20th year).
A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”

I have no argument with these definitions. I knew them. But why were so many people looking it up? What’s the cause or big deal?

For days, if not weeks, fascism has been in the top three. It was gone when I last checked. It’s been in the top ten for years. I get that.

Do you think someone is thinking, oh now, if it means that, then this is not a religion? They update the list about every 30 seconds, but still—religion? I find it oddly interesting.

A curious synonym for religion from the M-W online thesaurus is cult. I also agree with that connection. I was originally taken aback when I first read all religions are cults. Now I get it. Yes, they are.

You could say “so what?” or be insulted by that synonym. But one must remember, conversely, virtually all cults have a remarkable resemblance to a religion.

Bill

“We Are Angry”

Háu kola,

Mr. Hines, Chet to friends, was my high school government teacher. He was a tough and threatening ogre even back then. He taught my older siblings in a course called Problems of Democracy, initialized as POD. When I took it, the name was changed, and Hines said there are no problems with democracy. Yes, indeed there are problems. Keeping it is one.

He also said that our rights ended where his nose began.

As grim and stoic as he was, there was something I liked and respected about him. He made his position clear and offered to fight any of us should we desire physical confrontation. I don’t recall anyone rejecting his ultimatum, but some idiot probably did.

I was reminded of old Chet Hines when I read this article about Christians, one in particular, pissing off some Native American Tribes, the Oglala Lakota Nation, by insulting their cultural and religious heritage. Insult people’s religion and the cheese gets binding. This Christian got his evangelical panties in a wad when the Lakota leadership said enough of his rude bullshit.

To be fair, tribal leadership set rules for all religious groups on the reservation. I am talking about freedoms of and from religion and speech. Where is the beginning of tribal, cultural, or religious rights? Where does their metaphorical nose begin? Must indigenous people tolerate slanderous insult and injury because some Christians (cult or other religion) claim it is part of their religious freedom?

What about freedom from harassment by religious people (fanatics, missionaries, JWs, Mormons, evangelical whatevers)? What about those Lakota who are Christians (some are) and want to practice that? On the reservation, all such activity must be equally vetted and approved or not.

It is one thing to run around claiming Jesus loves you. It is another to claim, your family and tribal religion is from the devil, is evil, and you all are gunna burn in hell for eternity if you don’t believe me. And your past heroes were drunks, racists, and fools.

Dear Christians, these holier than thou crackpots are yours. They are not passing out bibles and baptizing willing souls in the river. They are insulting the very core of a people and their culture in exact defiance of what any normal person might do. They also have ignored all requests to stop.

This is classic religious persecution of a religion and ancient tribal belief system by a minority of Christians. But the stated goal of Christianity is to bring everyone into the group. This is also an obvious case of the fundamentalist bad guy playing the victim. And, for the record, this same jackass said that he does not even believe that Catholics are Christians (and he’s not alone).

Do I hear any objection from the six papists on the SCOTUS? Crickets!

Governance is a difficult and unpopular job. Add some religious bullshit and buffalo chips to the fire, and it may be time for the war paint.

Religious people often ask why atheists are openly and intentionally critical of religions. For two (and more) reasons. One, because aspects of many religions deserve the negative attention. In this case, tyrannical evangelistic proselytization by insulting not only the religion, but the culture and ancestry of people (i.e., turnabout is fair play).

Secondly, because as Christopher Hitchens said, “religion poisons everything.” And I agree.

As one of the Lakota leaders reportedly said, our objective is to decolonize mind, heart, spirit, land, and return to our Lakota ways; we don’t need any more churches to assimilate us. The reporter added, “Therein lies the rub surrounding the complex relationship in Indian Country with Christianity.”

Tókša akhé,

Bill

While this old song is about a different tribe, The Cherokee Nation, the long sad story remains the same. I’ve always like the tune, historically sad though it is.

On Biblical Fiction

I disagree with the claim that all atheists consider the bible a work of fiction. I am annoyed by that for two reasons. I didn’t like that someone else speaks for me about what I think or believe. Second, in my opinion, even for an atheist to make such a claim is as much folly as declaring all scripture fact.

Is the Bible a book of fiction? If you consider it either fact or fiction, perhaps it is. My dictionary says fiction is “something invented by the imagination or feigned.” Fiction is intentionally so.

Good story tellers of truth or fiction are rare and endangered artists. I humorously refer to the stories I write as lies or fibs (terms literalists might struggle with). Frequently enough, people ask if my story is true. Nothing I write is 100% fact, including this essay. Nor is anything I write total fiction.

It may be my best accurate memory. Factual journalism is challenging even for the best writers. If you’re as hung up on this as I am, try reading Reality Hunger: A Manifesto, by David Shields. Is exaggeration either fact or fiction?

I tell stories with beginnings, middles, and (the most difficult part) ends. My dreams are often related to a reality of my past. They’re not stories because they have only the middle: no backstory or once upon a time concept.

My dreams lack beginnings and transitions. They never end. I wake up or move on to another. There is no natural, spontaneous, or contrived ending. There is no moral lesson. Now, about the bible.

The point of the bible is that God inspired humans to write it. However, I am unconvinced of the biblical cannons being inspired since I believe there is nothing to do the inspiring.

For the sake of agreement, we all pretty much think the books of the bible are real and were written by people. They were also re-written, translated and retranslated, interpreted by and added-to by people other than the original, allegedly divinely inspired, authors. It all continues to happen even to this day. Yet, with all this effort, there is not even one original biblical document to read in any language.

So, which is it? Facts inspired by the divine or a bunch of nonsense and lies. While for many the answer is moot, I have never cared much. Did someone kill others with a jawbone? Did it rain for a long time causing floods? Were there wars and sieges? Did people cut off male foreskins? Were people crucified or decapitated? Was stuff copied from older stuff? Was there nothing and then six days later, everything? Did a bunch of slaves say fuck it and just leave followed by a bunch of morons who drowned? Maybe so. So what? Shit happens.

Even when I was a practicing Christian and teacher of the bible, it’s fact or fiction never mattered to me. I failed as a thumper. For me, the bible has always been a book of books about (and of) religion. But they are far from the only books of religion handed down through history.

So are these: The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys (Bahá’i); The Tipitaka (Buddhism); The Vedas and the Upanishads (Hinduism); The Quaran and the Hadiths (Islam); The Agamas (Jainism); The Tanakh and the Talmud (Judaism); The Kojiki (Shintoism); The Dao De Jing (Taoism); The Book Of Shadows (Wicca); and The Avesta (Zoroastrianism).

Omar Khayyam wrote, A hair divides what is false and true. People can call it whatever they wish. I speak for myself. For me, along with the Bible, all the above are books of religion. Each carry equal weight but have more meaning to that religious group, fact or fiction.

No god, master, translation, interpretation, inspiration, or conflagration required.

Bill

Who Ya Gunna Call?

I cannot remember the last time I bought a cake for a social event. If I did find myself in the market for a commercially made cake for an LGBTQ+ friendly event, I would probably ask around. Why would I bother with a bakery that I know will refuse my business for any reason, much less a religious one? Litigation is not my gig.

People are going to want to eat this thing. I need someone I can trust. I’m not saying that anyone would poison the cake, but people have been viciously beaten or murdered for being gay or black, atheist, Jewish, trans, or even a friend or ally of such people. Why risk it? I would be responsible.

As I’ve read about litigation over such things, I wondered how religious beliefs would work when more critical things are in question: health care, for example.

I noticed that South Carolina recently passed a law allowing medical personnel to refuse providing healthcare based on their conscience (faith, religion, beliefs, morals). This law amends existing legal code. State and federal laws already provide such protection. No doctor can be forced to do what they don’t agree with, except in an emergency.

Personally, regarding me, I don’t want medical staff doing anything they object to, are not skilled at or familiar with. I don’t want to be their first case—a guinea pig. I prefer no students, interns, or even residents practice on me, based on past experiences. I should have the right to decline treatment by students, but that is another argument.

Over the years, I have been hospitalized several times, I’ve had surgery and procedures where I have been helpless and/or unconscious. On a few of those occasions, I met the doctor and the rest of the surgical/procedure team for the first and last time in the OR/Lab.

I was able to glean some things about these people. Sometimes I knew one, but never all. Of those I knew, I could guess that maybe their native language was not English. I could also guess about gender/sex, but little more. I knew nothing of their religious or moral beliefs. It was a don’t ask, don’t tell situation. No doctor or nurse ever clearly prayed in my presence. That might be bad for business.

In one case, I met with the head of cardiology. As part of the discussion, he asked what I wanted them to do, if the pending procedure went south. I verbally approved extreme measures to keep me alive (unnecessary as it went well). He was not my attending physician/surgeon, but no one else asked me that question. I felt that if I had said, “No extreme measures. Let me die.” He would have made the note and been okay with that. I knew nothing about his moral or spiritual beliefs, nor the policy of the hospital regarding such issues.

Except for interns and residents, I expect medical professionals to know what they are doing. I hope they had good training, and I hope we get along in our provider-patient relationship.

But I wonder how often doctors are forced to perform non-emergency procedures their religion or morality prevents. Why are existing laws insufficient? Is this SC law political grandstanding and a waste of time and money? I don’t know. I live in Texas, so I also don’t care. But I did ponder some things.

I can’t say for other countries because I don’t know. But I’ve noticed that medical facilities/organizations, doctors, other medical professionals, and insurance companies always seem to get their way in the USA. I know there are such things as various patient rights, but what are they and what are the consequences of non-compliance?

I would like to believe that hospitals and doctors are dedicated to keeping everyone alive and healthy. I want to think that at least the doctors, if not the entire medical staff, will apply the best medical science to treatment. If a facility or doctor will place religion before my health and welfare, I want to know up front. Must I ask such questions?

Happy St-Jean-Baptiste Day to all my friends in Quebec,

Bill

If you really want to get into this topic, HERE is a JAMA study on people considering religion in selecting medical care (Guess what? Care quality matters more than religion).

And THIS is a list of traditional religious guidelines regarding healthcare (rabbit hole warning).

You Don’t Say!

Over many years during which I thought religion had some value, I tried several Christian denominations, even to the point of being one of the Catholics attending that denomination/church. Eventually, each church provided some revelation that persuaded me to walk away. I regret none of that, and I learned much from the experiences.

My wife was always my partner in these endeavors. One condition for us to give a church a try was that it had to be flexible enough to fit our thinking. These included Episcopalian, Methodist, First Christian, and other welcoming groups. Most were “main line” Protestant.

Some denominations were not going to see us except as walk-ons at weddings, funerals, or other events related to friends or family. LDS and J-Witnesses (I still consider these cults) were not ever even possible considerations. Other fundamentalist bible thumping groups were likewise considered and dropped almost immediately. These would include denominations like Church of Christ, Pentecostal (Holy Rollers), Evangelicals, most independent non-denominational (whatever that is) types, and of course, good old Southern Baptist (home of the hypocrite).

If drinking beer, dancing, and mixed sex swimming were considered sinful, that group was dismissed in a New York minute. Ironically, the only church in which I ever spoke from the pulpit was Southern Baptist. As the minister and I stood at the exit, worshippers filed out shaking our hands. They also kept giving me money. When I turned the cash over to the real preacher he said, “You may have missed your calling, Bill.”

Lately, the Southern Baptists have been kind enough to give me a reason to blog about them. And guess what? It involves sexual misconduct and a high-level coverup. Well, I tell you what! I’ll just swan. Bless their (formerly racist?) little hearts. Read all about it HERE.

Apparently, the once saved, always saved, and largest single Protestant denomination in the U.S., comprising one-tenth of American Protestants, and the world’s largest Baptist denomination, has been taking lessons from the Catholic bishops on how to turn a difficult and bad situation into a major scandal perturbing and embarrassing all 14.1 million of its faithful.

While I am not exclusively in the business of either attacking or defending religion’s hypocrites, anyone who thinks sexual misconduct only lies with pedophiliac Catholic priests and pompous bishops is woefully wrong.

Church and religion are the ideal turf for sexual crimes because, well, as everyone knows, you can trust a Christian much more than an atheist, right? And then there is God, who will take care of it all, right?

I keep quoting Hitch. “Religion poisons everything.”

Have a wonderful June. (Pride Month, Nat’l PTSD Awareness Month, International Mud Month; and today [3 June] is National Repeat Day.)

Bill

Not My Business, but…

The Roman Catholic (RC) archbishop of San Francisco ordered priests in his archdiocese to deny communion to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi because of her political support for all women’s abortion rights.

This is not because she killed anyone. She’s had no abortion. She caused no one to have an abortion. She has not molested any children. It is because Nancy Pelosi, as one of the most powerful Democrats in the USA, thinks women should have the right to choose, up to the limits of current secular law, what happens to and within their bodies.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s decision to forbid Pelosi from receiving the Eucharist in churches within her, and his, home diocese interestingly comes when the SCOTUS is expected to overturn the constitutional right to abortion embodied in the 49-year-old court decision Roe v. Wade.

Six Catholics currently sit on the Supreme Court. (No atheists.) Could their vote be influenced by the actions of their religious leadership? Could they be forbidden communion based on how they vote? Protestants and others worried about this when JFK was running for POTUS. Does anyone recall how JFK responded to that?

The RC powers consider abortion a grave sin. It is not the only grave sin. There are many. As with others of his ilk, Cordileone is willing to force his religious views on everyone, not only Catholics (Christians), by attacking lawmakers with threats and godly intimidation. In this case forbidding devout RCs (not just politicians) access to the central point of their religion.

Catholicism is a liturgical religious practice. The key part of that practice is the Mass, and the point of a Mass is changing bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ. Then the Eucharist is taken into the body of the faithful by mouth. It is the biggest deal.

Cordileone wrote a tweet. He timed his letter. He said he is not “weaponizing” the Eucharist (i.e., the Christ bullet), which RC’s must believe is the actual, real, living, transubstantiated body and blood of Jesus Christ. Yes, this MF-er is doing exactly what he denies doing.

I confess to being anti-clergy. I confess to being atheist. I confess that I really do not care if Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden take Communion. But I say Cordileone is a liar and a prick. His actions are 100% politically motivated. His willingness to force his views (in defiance of his boss and fellow American bishops) on everyone is clear.

I am certain that Nancy and Joe will continue to receive Communion despite the clownery and grandstanding of dickheads (useless ones at that) like this guy.

Keep in mind that birth control prevents unwanted pregnancy. Consequently, the idea of abortion never comes up. But the RC Church considers birth control, including wearing rubbers to prevent HIV, to also be a grave sin (so said a previous pope). This is a sin that has caused many, if not most, RCs to throw down the BS flag for many years in growing numbers. We used birth control.

Most RC bishops do not deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights. Pope Francis, the leader of the Church, indicated that he believes bishops and priests should not deny communion (the body and blood of JC) to anyone. He said that he never refused the eucharist to anyone. To me, it has always seemed illogical to do so.

The Holy Father also said, “If we look at the history of the church (OMG!!!), we will see that every time the bishops have not managed a problem as pastors, they have taken a political stance on a political problem.” (He did not say the omg part.) But that comment includes his own predecessors. One of the most notable of such messes is now called the Church of England. Another is Protestantism in general.

When people like Bishop Cordileone abuse their power and position, something religious hierarchy of every breed have been doing for thousands of years, they open the door for questioning, inspection, and critique. Boneheaded and blinded, many Catholic faithful will resent my harsh criticism. They will mealy mouth hair-splitting nonsense, thus enabling corruption they deny. “Religion poisons everything.”

Peace,

Bill

Give Kermit a click to read a San Francisco Examiner editorial on the matter.

I’m So Happy

It is challenging to keep coming up with things to write about having to do with religion and one of the thousands of gods I doubt. But once or twice each month some smatchet* fool just hands me a beer and says, “Now, watch this.” How do they do it? It’s pure fooking magic, I’m a-tellin’ y’all. Wham! No muse required.

I simply open a news link on my computer for a bit of depressing now what. And there it is in all that radiant reading glory. The reason why so many of us will take a royal pass on jumping into the Christian corral (or is it chorale?).

Some Pentecostal pinhead preacher in the far east parts of Nashville was literally told, directed, and commanded by none other than the main God himself, personally spoken in English, to cancel a bogus communion thingy and instead have a good old-fashioned book burning. Just like mort old Grandpa Adolph used to do, only this holocaust called specifically for some young adult fiction. It appears that God wanted to mess Satan over with a Harry Potter hot foot, of all things.

Preacher Pinhead claimed his followers had a “biblical right” (well hell yes. God told them to do it) to burn cultish books (as I clear my throat and raise both brows) and such, which they deem as threatening to their religious rights and freedoms. Yep. There ya have it, that ever-loving godly dude who gave his only son, etc.

Videos show a bonfire and people tossing books and other papers into the blaze. Praise god almighty!!! No more gall dang witchery from that ‘Hairy Pooter’ and his kind.

To be fair, no real news here. Harry Potter books were burned when first released. Other members of this panicked sleazeball-slime branch of Christianity, with similar religious loons claim such things encourage witchcraft.

I called J.K. Rowling. She said that she is heartbroken that her publisher will now have to print (and sell) more books to replace those burned. Wink, wink.

Why did this guy do this? This book burning party wasn’t the first time Dudly Dumbass made headlines. He’s denied the entire pandemic (clearly, he’s not an undertaker on the side), he preached that the Tennessee Governor, Bill Lee, was a “coward” for activating the National Guard to help hospitals battle it, and he is full of Trump-related BS conspiracy theories. He and his followers are also full of dangerous buzzard bait and swallowing every bit of it.

But look what I got. Blogger fodder as this snarkastic atheist points and laughs; and all the other Christians yell, “He’s not one of us.” I heard that same yell when Planned Parenthood medical clinics were bombed and killed people. Yes. He is exactly one of you!

And as for burning, here’s what else he said, “I ain’t messing with witches no more. I ain’t messing with witchcraft…I ain’t messing with demons.”

Should I send him a thank you letter?

Bill

P.S. *English contains an embarrassment of riches for when we want to say something colorful about someone. A contemptible person may be a blighter, cockloche, dandiprat, dirtbag, dogbolt, shagrag, stinkard bastard, beast, bleeder, blighter, bounder, or boor. They may be a bugger, buzzard, cad, chuff, churl, clown, creep, cretin, crud, crumb, or cur. Also, a dirty dog, rat fink, heel, hound, jerk, joker, louse, lout, pill, pinhead, rat, reptile, rotter, or a Yiddish schmuck; some are scum or scumbags, scuzzballs, or skunks. Anyone can be a sleaze, sleazebag, sleazeball, slime, slimeball, slob, snake, or a plain old so-and-so. Brits can also be sods, stinkards, stinkers, swine, toads, varmints, or any of various vermin. So why do we need smatchet? Just because there be so many contemptible people out there.

Truths About Choices

By what process do we make most important decisions? How do most of us select a religion or denomination to follow?

The who

What do Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelical Christianity have in common? With each other, about as much as they share with Judaism or Islam, and little more than those last two have in common with each other.

Within and between many religious or Christian groups the divisions are astounding, even to a cynical skeptic like me. They’ve pretty much all killed one another in the name of the god they claim to believe in. The god who knows and is responsible for everything, including them.

One thing they do share is the opinion that all atheists are immoral, criminal crackpots and meanies. Most recently I’ve been accosted for not thinking like a true American. Wowzer. Me?

Six of seven sacraments, a Boy Scout, several US Department of Defense careers (two honorably in uniform), Christian education and Bible Study teacher, Parish Council President; a father, and grandfather to about a dozen; and some right-wing crack-pot thinks it’s his job to enlighten me!?

Buddhism is a religious exception. There may be others. Many followers of this path are not a good fit as I define a religion (you need a god). I see Buddhism as more of a philosophical tradition. However, much of that philosophy and tradition can be woven with other religious beliefs. While Buddhists don’t believe in any gods, there are things that can help (or hinder) such people toward enlightenment. Meanwhile, back at the Reality Ranch…

The how

The rest of us, mostly Christians in America, have several methods for choosing a tribe or religion to follow.

We’re born or adopted into it by our parents or guardians.
We convert into it for any number of reasons.
We are forced into it in various ways.
For community and social reasons. Like, we want a church home for our family, and we find something that seems to work okay.
We discover it through careful analytical thought and examination of all religious beliefs, practices, philosophies, dogma, and whatever else belongs to the trappings of a religion. (Yeah, right.)

For example

My wife, Yolonda, and her three siblings were raised in The Church of Christ. They grew up in Texas. The entire family of kids moved on to other Christian denominations in adulthood because of their displeasure with the denomination of their parents.

Yolonda converted into the Catholic Church about twenty years ago (I was born Catholic), at least in part because I was giving the denomination a final attempt.

One day she said to me, “What I like about being Catholic is that you can be a normal human being and still go to Heaven.” If you know much about the Church of Christ, you know why she said that. Her decision to join me in that, and our eventual decision to leave it twelve years later, is another story. But we gave the faith lots of pray, pay, and obey for as long as we could.

Looking around

While I piddled with eastern religion and philosophies prior to the making one last run at the faith of my birth, neither of us ever took any path other than Christian and Catholic, until we both gave that up.

Looking back. the religious trek in our long marriage may seem chaotic, but that is what real searching looks like in hindsight. It’s called street cred. You must jump into the pool to feel the water. It is kind of like watching a pinball bounce around inside the machine. It seems chaotic, but the player knows what he or she is doing until the ball passes the flippers and is lost. To the ball, it is all random.

My truth

I was not born into atheism. I cannot name one atheist person I knew prior to age 21. Even after that, I’m not 100% sure I knew any names until I staked my claim. Atheism was never suggested to me as an option, nor was I forced into it. I resisted for socio-cultural reasons even as I slowly and continually moved toward it. There was no community satisfaction or social attraction similar to having a church home to being atheist.

If anything, it was the opposite as I noticed a few folks moving away from me socially. However, I did get to hear other friends confess their somewhat closeted atheism to me later. That still happens, although seldom.

My choice

I simply decided that I do not believe any god exists (as in is real), and I should be true to myself (see #5 above).

This is from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, not the Bible, where Polonius says to Laertes, “This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.” I enthusiastically, atheistically, and poetically agree.

Bill

Were You Really?

Are we what we do, what we say, or what we think and feel? Would the real me please stand up?

I usually take folks at face value regarding their claims. I accept that they are what they say they are. Why not? However, when I observe their behavior, I may become skeptical, or I may decide they lied. It happens.

I have met and heard of several people who, once firmly spirited into religious life, claim that they had been atheist before they found God, or vice-versa.

And things do change: “I once was lost, but now I am found, was blind, but now I see,” etc. Are people less likely to be honest, or more likely confused, when they use past tense? Maybe so. I also know people who will not say the word wretch when they sing the hymn, Amazing Grace. I agree. They probably never were miserable wretches.

I read a blog post where a former minister, now an atheist, theorized that most Christians who claim to be converted former atheists were probably not atheists, but were nones. He made a good case for his opinion. I have no way of knowing, but I’ve decided that I agree for several reasons.

Were they really atheists? Were they just ducking religion as so many claim atheists are doing? Did these people openly embrace atheism during the period of their lives when they claim to have been atheist.

Were they agnostic? Were they once practitioners of some religion before they left, sometimes angrily? Did they mentally equate some religion with the existence of God where they tossed the baby (God) out with the dirty bath water (religion)?

Setting aside false claims of unlikely death bed conversions, or someone laser-locking onto a flippant comment (like okay, maybe there is something), or confusion with the meanings of words, I suspect it is extremely rare for a convinced atheist to reach another conclusion and embrace any religion, much less Christianity. I suppose it happens. But very seldom.

The whole sociological and psychological phenomena of human religion and other beliefs are fascinating to me. When I openly declared my atheism, my wife’s comment was, “I’m not ready to go that far yet.” I doubt that she will ever say she is atheist.

Since I believe there is no god in the sense claimed by Abrahamic religions, virtually all religion becomes an interesting, often bizarre, form of human behavior for me.

I am not in the dark. I am informed and aware. I am neither lost nor wretched. I am happier being openly atheist than I ever was as a pay, pray, and obey Christian. While I may have been atheist in my thoughts and practices (or lack of) long before I said I was, it is hard for me to imagine someone like me honestly jumping back on the believer band wagon.

They were nones.

May you have a wonderful year 2022,

Bill