The founder of American Atheists was a bigoted hypocrite?

Photo of Madalyn Murray O’Hair. 1983 at Robert Ingersoll statue, Peoria, Illinois. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ve just finished reading “My life without God,” the autobiography of the son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who founded ‘American Atheists’ and was a force behind the removal of prayer in American schools. The author, William J Murray, heard the Bible and the Lord’s prayer in school, which incited Madalyn to start the campaign. He became a Christian as an adult.
It doesn’t paint a very pretty picture of the woman. In fact it says she was a violent, abusive, selfish, greedy, anti-Semitic communist; while publicly painting atheism and humanism as a more positive and progressive option. A hypocrite.I’d be interested to hear from any atheists who have read it as to their views. I’d imagine most would disassociate themselves from her behaviour. But it did prompt a few thoughts and I’d be interested in getting the views of people in the blogosphere.

1. Christianity is often criticised for the behaviour of some of its claimed adherents, e.g. Crusaders, paedophile priests etc, as if it reflects on the religion. Yet Madalyn seems to be an example of the same for atheism. But at least with Christianity, we have a set of rules by which we can judge the behaviour of the Inquisition for example, and judge that it contradicts the teaching of our founder, Jesus. Atheism doesn’t seem to have that – Madalyn’s behaviour contradicts no teaching of atheism, because there isn’t any. Also, she was an early pioneer of secularism; her language and arguments sounded very familiar and are still being used today. How can atheists criticise the wrongs done in the name of religion, when fellow atheists are behaving in the same way?
2. William was clearly indoctrinated with atheism as a child, without being able to give it much thought. One would think that if Madalyn ran a school, she would also indoctrinate her children with atheistic views. Yet the teaching of religion to children is criticised by many atheists; but in a ‘secular’ system how would they also ensure that atheistic views are not forced on children and all views are presented equally? And even if you did this; you are presenting religious belief in a way that it is merely a choice of belief, rather than reflecting any particular reality.

Is it right to criticise a group that thinks differently to you, for faults that are prevalent in your own group too? Hypocrisy, unkindness and dogmatism are present in all culture groups. But in Christianity, we have teaching that tells us that these are wrong, and gives a solution. Of course some people ignore this, but is it fair to characterise a group on the worst behaviour of its members?

How to find true love

Praise God (Photo credit: GlacierTim)

Are you waiting for your perfect partner – the person who will make you whole, and complete you? Do you yearn for compassion and affection, or a sensual touch? Does your search for love drive your life? Maybe you’re already in a relationship. Maybe you feel loved, secure, and happy, but you’re getting itchy feet. Or perhaps the spark has gone, and you’re thinking about looking again on the ultimate quest: to find your true soul mate.If you agree, I fear that you’re going to be disappointed. This kind of searching may lead to a romantic ‘high’ – a passionate fling, or the beginning of a promising relationship. But I don’t think these feelings are ultimately satisfied by romance, so they will never be fully quenched.

With such a large percentage of marriages ending in divorce, and higher numbers of single person households than ever before, we seem to be having more and more trouble finding love. But maybe the reason why is that we are trying to find love in the wrong place.

There seem to be many messages out there, that tell us that it is finding romance that will fulfil us. Movies, books and popular culture tell us so. Yet we look around us, and for most people, it’s elusive. Whether it’s frustrated singlehood, or promiscuity, or the humdrum of normal domestic, family life, relationships just aren’t the source of fulfilment and hope that we think they are.

Personally, I believe that those yearnings for love do represent a reality. I believe that there is a much Greater Love, that can be reached by all humankind, not just the people who are hooked up with someone. This love doesn’t come from a partner, but from God. Through an intimate relationship with the Lord, I have personally found my desires satisfied and my thirst for love quenched. When I yearn once more – I can go to Him with those feelings and ultimately I always find that love once again. God is never selfish, never grumpy, and can always be trusted. Therefore if He is our primacy source of Love, we are much more secure and content.

That’s not to say that I wouldn’t welcome a happy relationship. But it will be a happier relationship for having my needs met first in Christ, and for having more love in my life to give. A real relationship with God is the most wonderful and satisfying partnership that a person can have.

We are more than just material things, says atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel

There is a new orthodoxy, a new hegemony, and a new dogma.

Dawkins (Photo credit: Pug50)

It is creeping over academia, politics and the media, and those who challenge it are mocked and ostracised. It is the belief that life is nothing more than a collection of molecules, run soley through natural laws. Called materialism (a word that once had more negative associations, for very good reasons), it has become the new statement of faith that public intellectuals have to sign up to.A very popular philosopher who dared to question it is now condemned and ridiculed for doing so. Thomas Nagel, when he wrote “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”, was writing as a confirmed atheist. Yet he dared to question the idea that life is nothing more than matter.

As described in this excellent article in ‘The Weekly Standard’, his arguments are pretty cogent and interesting. But they’ve put the noses of the materialist dogmatists out of joint.

I find it fascinating that it has become so radical to question this concept. I talk with a lot of atheists, and their faith in materialism is astonishing. They cite science and evidence as their creeds, often with little understanding of what those concepts are, and then blindly strike out if you dare to point this out from a position of slightly more understanding. Of course there are also well-informed materialists; but those in the know should not use science as their justification for their beliefs.

As Andrew Ferguson says in the article, “Materialism, then, is fine as far as it goes. It just doesn’t go as far as materialists want it to. It is a premise of science, not a finding.”

The really sad thing is that some cite Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett as the ultimate authority on such things, as if they hold the absolute truth. Where is the intellectual inquiry? What can an enquiring mind do, other than bow down to the prophets of atheism? Never mind the fact that the ideas of Dawkins in particular, and Dennett, have been much questioned by academics and the flaws in their reasoning regularly pointed out. Somehow though, in the ‘bien-pensant’ circles where rigour and knowledge are not so highly prized (though their appearance may be), the materialists have been elevated to God-like status and their statements and ideas never questioned.

Particularly interesting in this article is the discussion of how the materialist desperately wants his view of the world to be true because he does not want God to be real, which he calls the “cosmic authority problem”. This is where all atheist claims of religion being ‘wish fulfillment’, or just a desire for comfort, fall down; because it’s equally obvious that atheists are just as emotionally attached to their beliefs; possibly much more so.

I’m glad that it’s not just theists who are radically questioning the dogma; there are now plenty of atheists who are doing so. Science is beautiful, but life is so much more than what science describes.

(Reblogged) The bishops, the language of violence and the muffled Bible

This is a really good blog post, about the recent ‘Bishop’s letter’ which criticises the welfare cuts in the UK. It also examines the role of Christians in politics.

The bishops, the language of violence and the muffled Bible.

I’ve thought a lot about welfare from a faith point of view recently. I’m fascinated that in the UK, both the left and the right are full of Christians, who have very different approaches to the issue. The Department of Work and Pensions, who are in charge of the welfare cuts, is full of Christians at the moment. Yet some of its strongest critics come from the wider church.

Personally I have observed the effects of the benefit system on its claimants that are so negative, the apathy and disempowerment it inculcates so severe, that I think serious reform is essential. This requires making being on welfare less attractive, and work more appealing. Any radical reform would likely have unforseen consequences, but the Tories seem willing to address at least some of these. I wish Christians on the left could be a little more willing to consider the complexities of this issue, rather than just offer knee-jerk simplistic responses. I also wish that they got to know people in these communities so they can see the reality of the system they are trying to support. All true Christians want to help the poor; but the different ‘sides’ of the political debate just want to do it in different ways. If we listened hard to each other rather than throwing stones, I think we’d achieve a lot more.

via (Reblogged) The bishops, the language of violence and the muffled Bible.

Young Adult film: a great performance, and a warning for all of us

mac cosmetics rainbow eyeshadow fake eyelashes on a green eye (Photo credit: pumpkincat210)

Sometimes it’s easier to describe something by explaining its opposite. So what is it to be full of love, and spiritually alive? Well, the exact opposite was depicted in the film ‘Young Adult,’ played with skill by Charlize Theron. A beautiful woman with no warmth, no compassion, no empathy: in short, with no love. It was only her needs that mattered, and they became a black hole; sucking any hope and goodness away so that all that’s left is a void.The film is about a woman who is a ghost writer for a teen romance series; but who packs her bags to try and seduce an old boyfriend, after learning that he has just had his first baby. It cleverly chronicles the daily life of someone who is totally alone, without any connection with her fellows, and without any moral sense of her actions.

In all that I think you still see her humanity, and a heart, that desires real connection and true love. She longs for her ex-boyfriend’s desire, as if that will fill the ‘gap’, ignoring the destruction this could cause.

It is interesting that desite her classically beautiful face, the perfect make-up and the stylish clothes, Charlize looks ugly thoughtout the whole film; her face dead, with resentment being the only emotion that is displayed on her face, with a bit of sneering and mockery now and then. It’s a fantastic performance.

Although the film says it is about a woman who has not grown up, I doubt there are many teenagers who are this self-absorbed or inconsiderate; nor adults either. The film seems to me to be a parody of our times in the materialistic West. How we search and search for something to fill us, how we ignore all our moral obligations and just seek self-gratification. How we are concerned for our appearance but not about the state of our heart. I think this film is a warning for us; showing us where we are headed if we do not start to focus on more spiritual concerns, and seek to love our neighbour rather than loving ourselves.

Abortion: right to life or right to live?

I’ve steered away from some of the most controversial topics in the Christian/secular cultural interface, up until now. But I thought I’d start to explore one of the real flashpoints, hopefully in a reasonable way, though I am sure I will offend some on both sides of the debate.

abortion protest in San Francisco – 058 (Photo credit: Steve Rhodes)

I thought about this subject today, after re-watching some Prime Suspect series, one where the ambitious policewoman Jane Tennison (played to perfection by Helen Mirren) has an abortion. The TV series, in the early nineties, records her distress and upset about having a termination. This struck me, because I don’t think that her feelings would be displayed in that way in the media these days. But on a personal level, a (totally unreligious) friend I know who had an abortion has only spoken of it with tears in her eyes, so I know it is not an uncommon experience to be deeply saddened after having an abortion.These days though, it seems to be almost taboo to be pro-life; we would be seen as reactionary, mysogynistic and bigoted. The debate has certainly become highly polarised, with little consensus, which is a shame.

The difficulty of the debate is obviously the conflict between the right of a baby to exist without being killed, and the right of a mother to have control over her own body. And undoubtedly, sometimes having a child would be a very difficult thing for a woman, most seriously if she had been raped, but also if she had severe financial pressures or other difficult circumstances.

Yet I don’t think we can just ignore the rights of a baby. Certainly, statistics about the number of foetuses with Down’s Syndrome, or even treatable conditions like a cleft palate - and even gendercide, indicate that there is a much deeper and more problematic ethical issue than just purely giving a woman control over her own body. Also, the number of women who have repeat abortions suggest that becoming pregnant is not taken as seriously as perhaps it should be.

One of the problems in the debate is that being against abortion is part of into a wider Christian ethic about sex being meant for marriage, where there is a loving, committed partnership between two people, and so having a child is less of a problem. For someone who does not have the security of a loving, monogamous relationship, Christian morals advise that we shouldn’t have sex; so that we would not get pregnant, but also because we see sex as intrinsically entwined with intimacy and genuine love, and that outside of this sex causes harm. This is a profoundly different ethic to our culture at present. If you see sex as ‘anything goes’ between consenting adults, then the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are much more likely, and much more difficult.

Ultimately for me, it is about the intrinsic value of life. Is an adult life more precious than a newborn baby, who is less developed? No, in fact some would argue the other way around. So why is an undeveloped fetus less precious than a child? But where is that line drawn? These are difficult questions that I don’t think the pro-choice lobby answers well – it tends to only focus on the rights of the woman, without considering the child.

The Nazis lost so much of the concept of the sanctity of human life that they slaughtered millions because it seemed like the right thing to do, and they felt threatened by the Jews, without any good reason. How can we be sure we are not similarly dismissing a fetus’s right to live, for the sake of our own convenience?

On the other hand, I think anyone can sympathise with the prospect of raising a child before feeling emotionally or physically prepared for it. Perhaps this is where the church should be focusing its efforts: on providing practical support and help to single mums in their difficult task. It would help if we were better at articulating the advantages of sex only within marriage, as well. I do hope though, that each side of the debate would listen to the other a little bit harder, and try to find some bridges.

Has Richard Dawkins bred a new kind of intolerance and bigotry?

English: Richard Dawkins giving a lecture based on his book, The God Delusion, in Reykjavik (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’m not a massive fan of claiming ‘persecution’ as a British Christian, when other believers are being executed and imprisoned in other countries, and I’m living a perfectly comfortable and free life. But I’ve had a few conversations recently that have really alarmed me, and have indicated that a new kind of prejudice is brewing. It’s particularly aimed against the religious, and it aims to paint all believers as ignorant, hypocritical idiots at best, and genocidal tyrants at worst.
Think I’m exaggerating? I’ve been particularly shocked by conversations with some young adults of late, students at my local uni. They are impassioned by all things liberal; fighting for gay rights, against welfare cuts and so on. Nothing wrong with that. But what is different in them, compared to my (older) generation, is how they talk about people of faith.
“The Vatican advocates lynching homosexuals,” said one friend on facebook, after a long discussion about Christianity. This was provoked by my posting a status update about two men who have been free of a crack addiction through their Christian faith. This is good news, surely? It would seem not. It prompted a torrent of anti-Christian hatred. The Vatican comment was justified by the guy because the Catholic church has opposed gay marriage. Opposition to gay marriage means that you advocate lynching homosexuals? Come one. And this in a country that already had civil partnerships; so the only extra ‘right’ was the name of marriage. He also claimed my religion was not peaceful, that religion has ‘devastating consequences’, and that it tells people that if they blow themselves up they will go to heaven. There were also numerous arguments against belief in God of the kind that Richard Dawkins propagates, which have been well challenged elsewhere, including by atheists themselves.
I do find it interesting that people are so unaware of the Christian roots of social activism, too: their forefathers acted because of their faith, not in spite of it. Most people seem unaware of the work of William Wilberforce, Elizabeth Fry et al; nor the Christian motivation of people like Martin Luther King. They take the extreme examples of suicide bombers and paint all religions with the same brush, even though my particular religion doesn’t even have any suicide bombers, and most Muslims are not, either.
Another comment on a friend’s status about a different matter; “I can’t believe Christianity can get away with behaving like this!” This was in response to an article about a gay Christian guy who had said his sexuality had changed, but who was caught on Grindr. Never mind that Grindr is an app designed for promiscuous sex, and therefore would be discouraged by most Christians whether they guy was gay or straight, this one guy’s experience apparently means Christianity is ‘behaving’ like this. She went on to say that there should be no Christians schools, and my children should not be allowed to go to a school where Christianity is preferred to other religions, even if the other religions were treated with respect and tolerance. She sees her, pluralistic, outlook, as superior, and that it should be imposed on others.
The sexuality issue is one that I try to remain open minded about. Some people who are straight go gay, some who are gay go straight, indicating there is considerable fluidity in the construct. I see it as a personal decision of someone of faith to ask God what His will is for their lives, including their sex lives. The whole sexuality issue in Christianity is not about who you love, it is about who you have sex with. Jesus asked us to love everyone, but who we have sex with is a different matter. First and foremost, I would encourage anyone of any sexuality to seek a relationship with God. It’s important to be willing to change aspects of your life, but that is a personal thing between them and God, and not any of my business.
It also seems extraordinary to me, that it is perfectly acceptable to the ‘rights’ lobby that a straight person could experiment or ‘go gay’, while a gay person who goes the other way is seen as either impossible or downright wrong.
Both these conversations indicate that there is a creeping intolerance towards Christianity itself, as well as orthodox Christian beliefs. I regularly hear arguments from Richard Dawkins et al about faith, as if he is an authority on the subject, rather than resoundly criticised by all who know anything about the subject. (I’ve praised his science writing elsewhere). Thanks to him, it seems to be acceptable to hold prejudiced views against Christians, and to lump them all in one basket, and to write angry and hate-filled words about them. If this behaviour was against any other group (except, perhaps, Conservatives), it would be rightly condemned. But this is seen as socially acceptable. Why?