Political Blogs, News & Views

By Scott | Reply to article

They all claim to be peaceful but only to there own kind. They seem to have forgotten “Thou shall not kill” or maybe it is just ignored.
Wow, I guess the Atheists (non-believers) are really the good ones.

Reply to this specific comment

By Mike | Reply to article

I praise Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Vishnu, and Shirley McClain for the prophetic voice of Scott Bannon. More years than could be comprehended have been devoted to the study, scholarship, and commitment to various religions. Certifiable geniuses like Blaise Pascal, most noted for his contributions to mathematics, but also a prolific Christian apologist, are proven to be insolent peasants compared to the all-encompassing knowledge of the Venerable Scott Bannon. I truly pity all who have heard the voice of God and responded in faithfulness by committing themselves to worshipping their Lord. An amazing thing has happened that would leave even the greatest of thinkers dumbfounded: Scott Bannon has somehow traveled outside of our system, transcending all of creation, and upon looking in on us little lab rats chasing our tails to get some cheese, he has determined that, in fact, religion is bogus. There is no spiritual value in it. Religion is all manipulation to lead people to follow some insidious agenda like loving their neighbor as themselves.

If Scott’s trip outside of our system to become the objective arbiter of true reality wasn’t enough to back up his claims, he has also spent his entire life going to church after church, only to have his hypothesis confirmed- all religion is about getting you to come play bingo at their place of worship. I do appreciate the time that Scott has spent studying religion, faith, spirituality, and the like. Usually when people make statements like Scott’s, it is clear that all they know about religion and its trappings came from cable news and long nights at the bar. But Scott has offered such compelling evidence to back his claims; he has sighted such historical records as can’t be disputed; he has even gone so far as to speak with God himself about true religion. Therefore, it should be obvious to all that Scott has really said something new, unique, powerful, and obviously true.

The only problem I have is that I can’t seem to get past the narcissism and hubris that it takes to speak as though he is the divine authority on a subject that he has obviously spent the better part of two fifteen minute smoke breaks thinking about. It is such a bogus, not to mention arrogant claim that HE has all the truth and that the billions of people world wide who have dedicated their lives to faith are completely in the dark. It is clear, however, that Scott does indeed hold the key to all supernatural wisdom, and I truly thank him for looking down on me enough to rescue me from my desolate and empty life of joy in the Lord. The part that really makes me want to cry in bliss is the way that it is clear that Scott is speaking in an un-biased and objective light, and doing so in a fair, well- reasoned, and (in his own words) inclusive and non-judgmental way. I truly feel liberated now from the shackles of my inferior faith. Thank you for pointing out that I am stupid and gullible. I feel the love.

Reply to this specific comment

By Jerry | Reply to article

I’ve been involved with two religions in my life. One I was raised with and one I converted to when I got married. In my experience the general idea of this writing is correct as both of these groups would have you believe that anyone who doesn’t follow their teachings is somehow less deserving of compassion in life since they’ll spend eternity in damnation.

Mike, I don’t know what you intended but your comments support the writer’s point by example. You could have given any rational or intelligent reasons for discussing or debating the writing but instead went on and on in sarcastic remarks about the writer. A clear display of the “see it our way or we’ll destroy you” mentality the writer suggests is fostered by major religions.

I have to ask if you know this Scott Bannen and hold some grudge or just get off on acting like a bully from your keyboard?

Reply to this specific comment

By Mike | Reply to article

Here is a question for you Jerry. If I had walked through the bible giving point after point in response to Scott’s arguement, would you have said, “Those are some great points. I never thought of that.”? Probably not. Instead, there would just be responses about how I think that my own religion is right and everyone else’s is wrong.

The interesting thing about atheism, and this article, is that they make the exact claim that the other religions make, and yet it pretends it doesn’t. Atheism is an organized religion with a very insidious agenda… to turn people of faith from following someone outside of themselves and to lead them to follow themselves. This accordingly leads to the “everything is ok for everyone” mindset, until what someone is doing goes against what the Atheist thinks is right. Then all of a sudden, there are standards and morals again, though they are totally arbitrary and based on the whim of the Atheist. So Christians are bad for trying to show a better way, but Atheists are great because they make no judgment at all, except that Christians (and other religious people) are bad, and that whatever random set of morals they want to apply at any given time are gospel.

My reaction to this piece is that it is so condescending to people of faith. If you aren’t a person of faith, you may just agree with it or not feel that you are being looked down upon. But to speak so matter of factly about something one has no real exapansive knowledge of is irresponsible as well as egotistical. And the closing line, that last little jab reminding all of us faithful people that we are responsible for the pain and suffering of the world, such as we see in the Middle East; yeah that is true arrogance, not to mention extremely judgemental. The overall sad thing is to assume that he has so much of a lock on the truth (though he gives no place where it comes from) and that he is truly enlightened. So to one who agrees with him, the whole argument sounds great. But to one who doesn’t, he is telling us all that he knows for sure what all religions are about, that he is smarter than us, and that we are all dupes. I am not certain that I want to convert to his religion based on that. After all, isn’t that the basic world view of most cult leaders?

Reply to this specific comment

Kim reply on October 2nd, 2008 6:04 pm:

Actually Mike.. at no point does the article tell you what you should believe… it just simply states that you should not believe everyhting they tell you in an organized religion (or church). You do not have to attend any form of organized religion in order to be a person of “faith”, but according to the church you must attend and give your money in order to ensure a better place in “heaven”. Let people believe in their God and do whatever you want with your beliefs. In your snide condescending remarks you are making a truth of what was said. You are even seperating yourself from others making comments like you have “faith” and we don’t. I may not believe in the God that you believe in, that doesn’t mean I am an athiest.. I may only believe that there is a higher power that NO ONE is going to be able to explain because the don’t truely know any more than I do… I am not talking about bible facts… the bible has not been proven to any extent. The bible was written by men in order to provide some guidence to people that may need it.. it is a book of metaphors that help explain how they felt you should deal with certain situations.

You are the close minded person that can’t read an article like this and take it personally. If you are strong in your faith then be strong in your faith and keep your comments to yourself.

More people than you know are starting to question the “authority” of the church. Just because someone has read a book that was written by man doesn’t mean that they are any more of an expert on the subject of how the world was created than me. Why is it when science undeniably proves certain facts that may go against what is being taught at a church that the science is evil? Why can’t we move past the fact that there really isn’t an answer to the oldest question know to man… we can only learn as much as we can and move forward from there.

I do not challenge any of my friends or family in what they believe.. but don’t get mad at me if I have questions that can’t be proven.

If this didn’t involve your ego of being “right” or “better” than you wouldn’t have made a comment at all…. interesting

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Though in response to Jerry’s comments, now you’ve posted something I’m happy to reply to Mike.

You seem to have an inaccurate assumption about this article and myself. At no point did I promote Atheism in this article nor speak in condescension towards people of faith. Nor am I an Atheist by any means.

In-fact, I wrote sincerely in the article that “Having faith in a higher power or Supreme Being, a belief that there’s something beyond what we know of this life; these are wonderful things for those who have them.” That is the honest and positive position I have on faith. It was also intentionally worded to not be condescending towards those who don’t have such beliefs.

I made no judgments on individuals for their personal relationships (or lack of) with whatever they do or don’t believe in.

My judgments were directed strictly to the hierarchal organizations which have taken and continue to take advantage of individual’s deep faith and convictions to advance their own, very human agendas.

I don’t believe that followers of organized religions do wrong, I believe they’ve sadly and often been wronged by those (very human leaders) they place their trust and faith in.

To give just one example which involves just 2 of the many religions that exist I’ll refer to the Sept. 11th attacks. If you know anything of Islam then you understand that it is not designed to be a religion of hate and violence. Yet some twisted the faith and their followers to become killers for their own agenda.

In response, to serve his own personal agenda on abortion, feminists, and homosexuals a prominent Christian leader, Jerry Farwell, said these people (abortion rights activists, feminists, homosexuals and the ACLU) were responsible for the attacks. In other words, the old live how I say you should or suffer the wrath line.

Pat Robertson, another highly followed Christian leader agreed with Farwell’s statements.

This is where and why I see Organized Religion (not faith or spirituality) as a danger. It fosters an environment where people are quick to condemn those who are different; and when you add in poor leadership–no matter how well intentioned they may be–it works to spread the divides between people.

Reply to this specific comment

By Mike | Reply to article

First of all, because some people have twisted organized religion doesn’t make organized religion bad. Is sex bad because some people are rapists? Is bread bad because every once in a while you get mold on it? Is water bad because some of it sits in a toilet? Such blanket statements as “All organized religion is bad” are arrogant statements that assume that you have a thorough understanding and involvement in each of the religions. In your reply you say that Islam isn’t bad, just those who have twisted it into the violent faith that it has become… doesn’t that admission disprove your point that organized religion itself is bad? If some is good and some is bad, then it isn’t all bad.

And if you weren’t being judgemental or condescending, then I guess “So remember, as you attend whatever religious services you might in the future, and perhaps even as you’re praying for an end to the current outbreak of violence in the Middle East, that you’re actually supporting such an organization as has helped lead to that very ignorance and fighting.” doesn’t mean what it sounds like. What it sounds like to me is that you want us to all realize that we have been manipulated and that all churches are responsible for violence, hate, bigotry, and all other evils in the world. You may have added, “Remember the next time you go to church that the Christian church was the single biggest player in restoring New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Remember that the Christian church is doing the great work of bringing down the AIDS rate in Africa after the liberal secularists preached condoms instead of abstinence to a continent plagued by this virus. Remember that good people of faith everywhere have done the work of meeting needs caring for people for thousands of years.” If we were painting a fair picture of organized religion we might include some of that.

All that said, I hope you guys realize that my purpose for writing was to get a response and open a dialogue. So if anyone thinks that the purpose of my initial posting was to show the superiority of Christianity, it wasn’t. It was, in fact, to show how Scott’s worldview as posted in his original article does the same things that he claims organized religions do. By telling us all that we support institutional terrorism by attending Sunday worship, like it or not, that is a value judgement on each of us who attend worship, suggesting that we are inferior in our understanding. The closing statement to the blog suggests that our eyes should now be wide open to the truth of what we have done. Please!

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Mike, I appreciate your comments. Whether or not readers agree with or even get my points doesn’t matter to me. My reasons for creating and publishing to this site is similar to your own stated purpose for commenting. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind on anything, just to get people talking.

Now, to address your point on blanket statements, I agree completely. However, nowhere in my article did I say “All organized religion is bad” as you imply. My intent, and I think I stated it clearly enough in the sub-title tag line (“The dangers of Organized Religions”) and supported it further with examples within the article itself is simply that there’s very real dangers inherent with Organized Religions.

I did say they have “nothing to do with spirituality”, which they don’t as one can have a very deep and fulfilling relationship with their deity without the association of an Organized Religion. And also that they were tools used by some for their own agendas, which they have been throughout history and are still today.

As for the complaint that I haven’t painted a fair picture of Organized Religion, I again agree. The idea of this article wasn’t to discuss the whole embodiment of Organized Religion and it’s social impacts, good and/or bad. The theme of the article was the dangers in divides created and fostered by Organized Religions, period.

About my closing statement in the article, it is based in historic truth and wasn’t made of malice nor condescension. If you or any reader can enlighten me as to the Organized Religion which hasn’t contributed to the types of events or fostered the types of prejudices I spoke of in the article then I promise to personally apologize on this site to the followers of that Religion for my statement.

I don’t make that promise from some position of superiority nor as a challenge. I would sincerely like to know if such an Organized Religion exists, because in my studies of history and religion I’ve yet to find it.

Reply to this specific comment

By Jerry | Reply to article

Mike, since you asked me how I’d have responded to you walking through the Bible giving points to the original writing I’d have probably asked why you were making points from the Bible. They would have been off-topic from the original writing which never addressed any scriptures.

It’s been interesting to read the comments here, but I think maybe you felt that the original writing was attacking religion more than it was, and it seems like you’re expanding the discussion beyond the topic in order to defend your position or feelings.

Scott (and I’m sorry as I see I misspelled your last name earlier) seems to be focused on what I’d call the natural “pack” mentality that is common with any group of people to protect their own interests existing among organized religions. It isn’t even just with religions, soldiers do it, cops do it, union members do it against management and management against labor, politicians do it along party lines.

People are like pack animals and when they group together in just about any form it’s common that they begin to view those outside of their packs as a threat. I think the writing’s opening that equated organized religions with social clicks was great.

It may be more dangerous with religion because religion is something that many people feel as strong a need for as they do breathing. Some go so far as to be willing to believe anything they’re told to by theyre religious leaders.

I guess I just didn’t see the original writing as putting down people of faith at all but rather soundly pointing out some negative aspects of organized religions. I’ve seen and felt them in my own experiences and think the writing was pretty spot on about it.

Reply to this specific comment

By Mike Bridge | Reply to article

This is a message for Scott- I would like to apologize for my posts. I had originally written one that just responded to his claims… but when I hit send I got an error and lost like 3 pages worth of writing. So when I re-wrote a post, I will admit I was pissed at my computer so that may explain why it was so angry sounding.

I have known Scott for like 15 years. We used to have discussions and I would like to just say some controversial things to get him going. It was never intended to be mean spirited then. I was going for the same thing here (but like I said, was already frustrated at my computer so it got out of hand). I was really just trying to agitate a bit and get the discussion going because there were no responses to anything. I have actually done the same kind of thing on my own blog (posted opposing reviews to my own thoughts so that people would react and respond).

At any rate, I do apologize. I appreciate the forum for thought and discussion. I disagree with just about every point posted on every post. But in the future I will be more pleasant and thoughtfull in my posts. And I will use my organized religion’s church services to pray that I have no more meltdowns after computer malfunctions. =-)

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Mike, no apologies required. I had an inkling it was you and am glad to see you’re still feisty as ever. It’s been a few years and I hope all is well for you.

I certainly understand how this article might touch a nerve with you and am glad it evolved into some civil back and forth. As I said earlier I’m not trying to make anyone think like me–just with me.

I welcome and appreciate your thoughts always.

Reply to this specific comment

By Mike Bridge | Reply to article

I wised up and learned me a thing or two about responding to blogs… I wrote this with Word first and cut and pasted so that if it gives me an error I don’t lose all my writing.

I am going to do my best to start with the first paragraph and make my points of disagreement in order of how Scott wrote them. That means we start at the beginning with likening the “religious” among us to the different groups in high school. In one regard, this is a good comparison; yet in another it is wholly inaccurate. Most people were forced into a category in high school, whether they identified personally with that group or not. I was never considered a jock despite being captain of the soccer team and playing basketball in high school.

On the other hand, most of the people of a given religion are members of that religion by choice. Sure there are “nominal” members of a religion, but it isn’t fair to say that someone whose parents raised them Catholic, yet they haven’t been in church for 10 years, is somehow akin to a devout Catholic who worships every Sunday in faith. A nominal Christian might be similar to a “geek” in high school because most people don’t aspire to be a geek and a nominal Christian doesn’t aspire to really be faithful. But a faithful, prayerful, spirit-filled Christian sees his/her faith as far more than membership within a social club.

I see myself as a Christian before anything else… even before I see myself as a husband or father. In fact, it is as a Christian that I view myself as a husband and a father. The point is, I may or may not have been a geek in high school. That classification would likely have been imposed upon me. But I am a Christian to the very core of my being. It hasn’t been imposed upon me, and it isn’t a whimsical fancy that will change with the direction of the wind.

Next I will deal with a series of blanket statements. On the issue of whether organized religions are merely social cliques created and directed by- and to serve the interests of- people; this is an uncharitable view of religion. It assumes that all religion, and by association, all religious leaders simply want to bring people into their faith for self-serving manipulation. While this is certainly true of many (if not most or all) cults, it is simply inaccurate within the confines of the major world religions as a whole. As we go through this portion of my argument, I realize that there are many, many examples where the Church has acted in a self-serving manner or has abused its power. My argument will focus on the fact that just because there have been some bad eggs, doesn’t mean that the chicken needs shot.

I am a Christian and feel no real need to defend the other religions (not that I am attacking them, but I have a Christian perspective so that is where my points will come from). But I will speak with regards to the Christian faith. As a pastor, there is nothing self-serving in what I do. This isn’t to say that there aren’t self-serving clergy within the church. In suggesting that organized religion is itself a man made entity used to manipulate people to serving its leaders agenda, I will say this; the only agenda I have is introducing people to Christ. When someone tells me I am a good preacher, a good pastor, a good worship leader, or whatever, I always point the glory back to Christ. I am not alone in this. Most churches are this way. I live in a town of 6000 people that has 30 churches. I know most of the pastors intimately and they are good, God-fearing, loving pastors who only care to see their people find a better life by handing their burdens to Christ.

As to whether the Christian faith serves the interests of people- it does. It serves the interest of the sinner who is overburdened with sin and doesn’t know how to relieve himself from it. As opposed to serving the interests of people by affirming any and all behavior, including murder, slavery, incest, etc., the faith actually serves them by pointing them in a new direction towards a more fulfilling life. The only benefit the Church gets from that is seeing another person find peace and great joy in Christ. While my goal in preaching the Christian faith is to “keep large numbers of followers walking the path I promote” in a sense, that doesn’t make it insidious. If I am leading people towards a better life, preaching that the Christian faith leads to inner peace and joy, how is that inherently evil? Consider that if you are a tight-rope walking instructor, you are going to have the goal of keeping people walking the path you promote, i.e. walking straight, with balance, not looking down, etc. Does that mean that the instructor is taking advantage of the people by trying to keep them from falling off the rope? Is it insidious?

I would like to also argue that the Christian Church was instituted by Christ himself, but I recognize that to get into a scriptural argument with a skeptic won’t accomplish much. So I will simply say that from my perspective, we are worshipping God has he called us to. (The bible talks at length about worship as God intended for his people.)

It is entirely inaccurate that organized religion has “nothing to do with spirituality or an individual’s relationship with the higher power they believe in.” I, as well as thousands of preachers around this country, preach solely on the gospel of Jesus Christ, leading people into a deeper relationship with him. We do discipleship training, bible studies, contemplative prayer groups, spiritual retreats, book clubs, speaking tours, and many other things all for the purpose of bringing people into a closer relationship with Jesus Christ.

Understand that I look with the same contempt for the distortion of the message that comes from many televangelists. I cringe when I am asked to call in to receive my free miracle spring water or that if I am willing to give $1000 donation, God will bless me with a sevenfold blessing for my obedience. But for every person preaching this message, there are at least 1000 committed to the true gospel of Christ. And God is clear that in scripture that the false teachers and the ones who take advantage of his people will be sufficiently dealt with.

The suggestion that the Christian Church (as an organized religious entity) has nothing to do with spirituality is also far off base. As with each other point, there are places where there is a “church” but no spirituality whatsoever. That doesn’t mean there is no spirituality in the church. All of the greatest writers on Christian spirituality (Richard Foster, Quaker; Henry Nouwen, Roman Catholic; and countless others) are affiliated with organized movements within the church. They aren’t (or weren’t) Christians who isolated themselves and lived outside of an organized movement. And for each of the writers, you get a specific take on spirituality based on the traditions of their organized movements.

Further, there is great historical evidence for a “spiritual Christian Church”. For example, John Wesley (Anglican, founder of Methodism) is known for having ridden over one million miles on horseback across Europe preaching more than one hundred thousand sermons, all the while, seeing such a dramatic increase in spirituality in response to his gospel preaching that it sparked an evangelical Christian revival (revival being marked by the obvious presence of the Spirit amongst the people). At the same time as Wesley did this in England, George Whitefield was bringing a reformed revival to America where the Spirit abounded.

In our modern times we have the Toronto Blessing and the masses of people who have been touched by Billy Graham, who brings a message of Christian spirituality as opposed to religion. None of this is to speak of what Christian spirituality looks like in Africa, where Christians are still dying daily for their faith, yet are so full of the spirit as to consider their lives worth giving for the Lord they serve.

On the surface it may be accurate that organized religions are the leading cause of death and suffering throughout the history of existence. In some regards it is true. But isn’t the same as assuming that all religions are alike. For example, in 2004, of the nearly 300 world conflicts, there were only 3 that didn’t have Muslims on at least one side.
This isn’t to say that Islam itself is to blame, as much as radical Islamists. But more importantly, this shows that just because some religions are violent, doesn’t mean they all are. Jews, for example, have been on the receiving end of persecution since the beginning of time. They rarely, if ever, are the aggressors in such conflicts.

Another point to consider is that just because “Muslims” or “Jews” or “Christians” are involved in a conflict, that doesn’t make it a religious battle over whose God is going to win. For example, in the Sudan, Muslims are killing Christians as we speak. But the fight isn’t over whose God is bigger. Instead, the issue is that the Christians live on the land with the oil. This is also the case within much of Asia where Buddhist (or some version of Buddhist) governments are oppressing Christians (and other faiths, but mainly Christians), not because of the conflicting religious beliefs, but because the Christian faith speaks of freedom and that doesn’t jive well with dictators who want to keep the people oppressed for their own political power (which is totally separate from their own religious views). Even Saddam Hussein, a Muslim in name, and Adolf Hitler were dictators who were interested in their own power, not in any kind of religious domination.

In our modern world, Christianity is not a part of a mass genocide in the name of God. Neither is Judaism. The bleak spot in Church History would be the crusades. The crusades aren’t something that any Christian is proud of; but since they ended a thousand years ago, it is unfair to use them as a measuring stick of the true faith of the Christian Church today. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to view the crusades in historical context. They were a response to Muslim aggression in trying to take Jerusalem and in trying to establish global Islamic rule. (The word Islam means submission, and it is generally taught that peace will come when the world submits to Islam.) In fact, had it not been for one pivotal military victory by Charlemagne, the entire Western world would likely be Muslim today. This isn’t to whitewash the Christian role in the crusades, but merely to put them in more of a context by which to view them.

It is also worth noting that through much of Christian history, the Jews and the Christians have co-existed with little trouble. It was in the face of a new religion (Islam, 7th century) that Christians or Jews had struggles with existed alongside another faith (because that faith wanted to destroy them). Mohammed, the founding prophet of Islam, took up the sword himself and forcibly converted the surrounding peoples. (I am not trying to bash Islam, but only to give a historic perspective of when the struggles for the Christian and Jewish faith really began.) This is where the “chanting peace while forcing to convert” really began.

Not all organized religions are innately good either. For example, the Hindu caste system is an example of an organized religion genuinely being used to oppress people. Also, South American civilizations have used human sacrifices to appease their gods. But it would be unfortunate to view Christianity as being equally bad because of what these other religions have done. Christians have surely made their share of mistakes; but the message that is preached around the world within the core of the Christian Church is one of peace and love.

It is true that religion can lead to social intolerance. This should be considered in its fullness before crediting religion itself as the problem. For example, the bible does say that homosexuality is a sin. It also says many other things are sins, though, and this doesn’t mean that homophobia or violence against gays are inherent within the Christian faith. Often times, people read their agendas into their faith. So someone hides behind the bible because they hate gays. An example would be Fred Phelps. This guy, who runs the “God hates fags” church, calls himself a Christian, but I can assure you, that the vast majority of the church disassociate themselves from him and his views. He is a person with a problem, and uses his faith as a way to support that prejudice.

Likewise, Jerry Falwell has said controversial things that are very unfortunate for the rest of the church. But I know that in my church (and the churches run by all my friends) we don’t support preaching hate, violence, or condemning a whole movement of people. The Christian message (though it has been corrupted and/or misused by many) is one of loving people. We can say to someone, “You know, this or that thing in your life doesn’t please God, and by turning from it you can come closer to Christ,” as long as it is said in love and as long as we aren’t throwing them out if they say they aren’t interested. But we aren’t to say things like, “You are gay (or a drunk, or an adulterer, or a liar) and we don’t want you here and neither does God.” Sadly, this kind of thing does go on. But that doesn’t mean that it is the gospel message; nor does it mean that the majority of organized Christian churches would support any such statement. But to suggest that because Jerry Falwell says something controversial, that the whole Christian Church follows or believes it, or is bad or intolerant, is akin to saying that all movies are bad just because you disagree with porn.

I would like to use a visual example if I could to address the issue of whether or not following a higher power requires or depends upon organized religion. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that to follow Christ you absolutely have to be in church every Sunday. But consider the following: when you are looking into a fire, there are many coals. That fire could burn for hours of properly cared for. What happens if you take one coal out of the fire? The fire still burns, but the coal goes out very quickly. Our spiritual lives are the same. We are surrounded by a society that is increasingly intolerant towards organized religion in general and Christianity specifically. If you are trying to follow Christ, but are never around other Christians, never hear an exposition of the word, never pray or worship in a formal setting; it isn’t that you can’t be a Christian. Instead, the problem is that you are more likely to lose interest, focus, and dedication to it. On that note, I do agree that there are many churches with bad leadership. There are also many, many churches with great spirit-filled leadership where the worship is edifying, the people are spiritually fed, and the fires of faith are fanned to burn brighter and brighter.

Next is the claim that today’s religions aren’t building any sort of unity. This is true across religions to a degree, but that makes sense. It isn’t whether I can be unified with a Muslim on whether we are both going to heaven that is really the issue. The issue is, can I co-exist with a Muslim while believing that we worship different gods and believing that I am right and he is wrong (and vice versa). There are numerous organizations working towards inter-faith understandings and co-existence. While I will never profess Mohammed as a legitimate alternative to Christ, I will likewise never condone violence or hate for those who would. This whole area really is a hot issue these days though, mainly thanks to the militant Islamists who are insistent on working against inter-faith peace.

Finally, I would like to respond to Scott’s closing statement. Scott’s conclusion is that as we attend worship and pray, we should remember that we are “actually supporting such an organization as has helped lead to that very ignorance and fighting.” This is just not true. First of all, the Christian Church has been the forerunner of pushing for inter-faith peace. Second of all, just because I am a Christian and so were the “crusaders” hardly means that I support the crusades. This line of reasoning is like me saying, “As you go shopping, remember that you are actually supporting the industry that promoted slavery.”

While it may be true that Christians have done some bad things throughout history, it is equally true that Christians have been responsible for far more good than how much bad they have accounted for. It was thanks to the Evangelical Christian movement (headed by William Wilberforce) that saw value in all human life that led to the abolition of slavery in England (and then America). That same value on life is what urges women to consider adoption over abortion. It was also thanks to Evangelical Christians in America that we have the social welfare systems we have today. Up until the late 19th century the Christian Church in America handled (and was quite proficient at handling) all of the social needs such as feeding the poor and caring for the marginalized. The government eventually took it over because the needs became so great that the church had to ask for help in doing this work.

All that considered, if we want to consider whether or not churches today are doing good work, caring for people, and living out the gospel call, I will submit two examples that from my church this summer. In May we held our second annual baseball camp for the elementary and middle school kids in town. As a service, we offered a three day camp, complete with in depth instruction from a college baseball player and t-shirts. We had 80 kids come, and they have enjoyed it so much that the high school offered the coach (my brother) the full-time coaching position at the high school. This may not sound like much, but in a town of 6000 that is thirty miles from the next closest town, sports are all we have. And the second service is that we ran a food pantry that in the past two weeks has provided over 100 people with food for a month. The other churches in my community have been equally active in meeting needs and caring for the people, at all times putting others first instead of satisfying some self-serving agenda.

Well, I could say a lot more, but it is already way too long. I will simply close by saying that, yes, the Christian Church has had some problems, set-backs, and has its share of doing the wrong thing; but overall, the Christian Church has been a very positive entity in an often crazy world. While there should be caution in buying whole-heartedly into everything a religious leader might say; there should be equal understanding that the bulk of those in the Christian ministry seek only to share the love of Christ they have experienced in their own lives with all those around them. There is nothing insidious about that.

Reply to this specific comment

By Mike Bridge | Reply to article

There is an important typo in my previous posting. The line which reads: This line of reasoning is like me saying, “As you go shopping, remember that you are actually supporting the industry that promoted slavery.” (fourth from last paragraph) should actually read: This line of reasoning is like me saying, “As you go shopping, if you buy any products that use cotton, remember that you are actually supporting the industry that promoted slavery.”

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Mike, your points are well thought out. I think you took my social cliques comparison a bit past the intended context though to argue that most people of any given religion are members by choice. I don’t believe that to be entirely accurate at all and in your own later argument (the visual example) you say that the presence of the Christian Church in one’s life will help them to keep interest and focus in following Christ. Doesn’t that suggest and imply that people are–or can be–influenced by the religion they’re exposed to? Also, in many parts of the world there are no choices for people as to what religion they’ll belong, or even if they’ll belong.

Even in the more advanced and free nations we have to recognize that children of religious parents aren’t typically given a choice as to what religion they’ll be exposed to early on in life. Certainly they are free to pick another path later, but at this point the exposure and influence on them by their parent’s choice is great and they’ve been told repeatedly during their developmental stages that the only true/correct path is the one they’re already on.

This doesn’t negate their freedom to make another choice, but it certainly isn’t as simple as switching from Coke to Pepsi either. And many will never even consider seeing for themselves if there is a better choice for them out there, just because they’ve been told not to. So they remain members of the same faith their parents chose for them. It’s not exactly at the point of a gun, but it wasn’t a truly free choice made by the individual either.

I tried to stay clear in the original article of pointing to any specific religion and I’m going to continue to do so now. I have no doubts that you are honest in your intentions and agenda as a pastor at all, I will simply ask if you can make that same claim of all your peers?

Again, I never said or meant to imply that Organized Religions were all bad, or did no good. My point was that there are inherent divisive dangers in Organized Religions. I would expand on that with an argument I edited out of the original article that these divisive dangers may in-fact be worse today than ever before simply because the population has grown like never before. With more people sharing the limited lands of our world, and more people belonging to the various Organized Religions which take the position that they are the only right way I expect to see more frequent and violent disputes in the future.

You call me a skeptic and also imply that the Church is required for people to acquire a deeper relationship with their deity. That’s pretty disrespectful and dismissive of my personal and very deep relationship with God. I don’t think you intentionally meant that, but I believe it stems from the very crux of my article’s point. Because Organized Religions demand a full devotion to their teachings being true, it is simply human nature to unconsciously view with lesser regard those who have other or no beliefs. One can’t help but do it when they’ve given their mind, heart and soul to the belief that they’re on the right path; it must mean that those on a different path are wrong. Again, I don’t think this is an idea that most people consciously subscribe to, it’s more of a side-effect inherent with Organized Religion.

Your comments on my closing statement aren’t fair. You can’t make the comparison of my comment to yours on slavery in the cotton industry for one simple reason, labor practices in most of the world have changed for the better. Organized Religions are still dividing people. It may not be happening in every Church, Mosque or Temple and it may not always be overt or intentional, but it’s happening every day none the less.

Reply to this specific comment

By Mike Bridge | Reply to article

I don’t have time to comment on your entire response at this time (I will tomorrow though), but I did want to say one thing before heading off for the night. Though a fuller response will be forthcoming.

I want to comment on your second from last paragraph at this point. You say that my refraining from a the biblical argument and calling you a skeptic is disrespectful (though I would argue no more so than implying that in supporting the church, I support oppression). In reality, it was the utmost respect. I wan’t going to make an argument out of the basis of my faith (from an organized religion) and presume that you should buy it as good reasoning because I don’t know your views on scripture. If I quote scripture to “prove” a point and you don’t hold to scripture, it serves no purpose in getting anywhere. And in calling you a skeptic, it in no way implies that you don’t have any beliefs. But it is clear from your posting that you are skeptical about organized religion. Thus, I call you a skeptic about using the doctrinal and theological basis for my organized religion. I am not suggesting that you are a skeptic of a higher power. I am simply affirming that you are skeptical of my overall argument and point within organized religion. That seems to be accurate and was not and still is not intended to be disrespectful. It in no way dismisses your relationship with God. It dismisses my need to push the particular point.

I don’t imply that the Church is required for people to acquire a deeper relationship with their deity. I specifically said the opposite. I said that it is easier to be something if you are surrounded by like minded people. Somehow this is being seen as disrespectfull and manipulative when it is just the opposite. If you are an alcoholic, is it better to be around people who are or aren’t drinking? Is it manipulative to be around people who also don’t drink? Or is it easier for you to maintain that state of sobriety if you spend more time around others who are sober? This doesn’t mean you can’t get sober while hanging around others who drink all the time. But any expert will tell you which is an easier way. Likewise, if you are regularly hearing the word, being around Christians, spending time in worship, wouldn’t that make that lifestyle one that is much easier to live than if you truly wanted to be a Christian but hung around people who were smoking crack, beating their wives, and worshipping satan all the time? This point is common sense. It isn’t manipulation and it isn’t disrespectful or dismissive.

In the early church there were what was known as the Desert Fathers. These were men who dedicated their lives to seclusion so they could focus their time on a relationship with Christ. The were certainly very spiritual men, and very committed in their faith, despite being isolated from other believers. I believe that people are capable of that same reality today. So clearly I don’t believe that church is required to have a deep held faith. At the same time, that doesn’t make my argument any less true. Which way will see the average person’s faith nurtured more: being in Christian settings regularly, being in bible study, having good Christian fellowship, experiencing the Lord through worship, in addition to the private time that you spend on your faith such as devotion, prayer, and private scripture time; or spending only spending private time alone with your God? This isn’t a condescending or disrespectful or dismissive argument. It is common sense. To reiterate, it isn’t that the latter is impossible, but the former seems like a stronger way to remain committed. (Oh, why should it be such a struggle to remain committed if it is so great? Here is a question, are you more likely to cheat on your wife if you are always around other women you are attracted to and who are attracted to you; or if you spend more time with your wife, loving her, committing yourself to her, and intentionally devoting yourself solely to her? Does the temptation to stray from marriage somehow negate the value of marriage itself?)

The last thing I will say before I must go and finish preparing for tomorrow morning’s service is that you ask a question a few paragraphs earlier that is equally disrespectful and dismissive as what you claim my calling you a skeptic was. You say that you believe that I am honest in my intentions and agenda, but you ask whether all my peers are. The implication of the question is that they aren’t. To assume they aren’t is equally disrespectful to each of them an dismissive of their faiths. All of my friends who are pastors are honest in their intentions to simply share the love of Christ with others. I know there are certainly those who aren’t. But the fact that some aren’t doesn’t negate the reality that most are.

I feel like I should respond to the rest now because it is swirling in my head, but I have much work to get done. Hopefully I will get it done and finish this response up tonight. Otherwise it will be tomorrow afternoon sometime.

Reply to this specific comment

By Anonymous | Reply to article

From time to time I have become involved in the religion of my family – Judaism. And there is no doubt there were times when I found it a comfort to be able to swim in a sea of ritual that takes you out of yourself and away from your daily worries.I loved the prayers, the songs and the ancient rituals based on practices thousands of years old. Did I believe it? Did I really really believe it? No of course not. Judaism just like any other religion involves silliness that derives from beliefs that we know today to be untrue based on historical studies and our knowledge of science. I never have any issue when people have private beliefs that they live their life by. But (and its a big but) I also adhere fervently to the adage that one mans right to swing his fist ends at the tip of the next mans nose. The minute you begin trying to ram your beliefs down my neck either directly by trying to insist on me believing your brand of religoious silliness or indirectly by trying to turn my country into a theocracy (baased of course on your theaocratic beliefs.) Than damn you you in for a fight. After all my anscestors were thrown out of Spain 500 years ago on just this basis. And those who stayed behind were subjected to the horrors of the holy roman inquisition. Cant happen today? Crap it cant! Just listen to the rhetoric of some of the evangelicals and you might think you were listening to a Spanish conquistador arguing for the cross or the swaord.

Reply to this specific comment

By Anonymous | Reply to article

Basing any argument from the bible is worthless.

The bible(and thus the entire Christian faith) was designed by the Roman Empire hundreds of years after Jesus was supposed to have lived and died(about 380 years to be precise.) None of the books of the New Testament date to within the lifespan of any of Jesus’ first-hand followers.

It is also worth noting that the Church KILLED the a guy who translated the bible from Latin to English in the 1520s.

Reply to this specific comment

By Florian | Reply to article

Hi,
I found your blog via google by accident and have to admit that youve a really interesting blog
Just saved your feed in my reader, have a nice day

Reply to this specific comment