Religion are Politics are intertwined ( whether we like it or not) hence the reason why
A Rational Being's recent diary, entitled
There is No God (And You Know It), stirred the pot here at
Daily Kos. It made it to the top of the recommended this by 10:12 today with over 500 comments.
It's hardly surprising, of course, as the topic of religion enflames our passions and drives rational and irrational people into flurries of convoluted logic.
Many of the comments were supportive of the diary entry (a link to another article by Sam Harris), few posts were neutral, many people felt that their faith was under attack, and still others shared personal, moving tales of their own exploration of the divine.
Few people at all had a clear understand of what atheism is, though, so on the flip I want to elucidate the definition for the dKos community.
Contrary to popular belief (and popular opinion) an atheist doesn't deny the existence of God. Most dictionaries still refer to an atheist an a 'denier' (c.f.
Onelook Dictionary's compilation of definitions).
Merriam-Webster Online has the correct defintion, and it is the one I will use for the duration of this discussion. It is as follows:
: one who believes that there is no deity
That's it. There is no denial involved. It is a basic belief system that has been divorced from its humble Greek in the vulgar parlance.
Agnostic is also similarly misabused (hehehe). I noted a few commentators saying that they believed in a deity, but were agnostic. The only definition of agnostic that you need is this one:
: a person who holds the view that God is unknowable
That is, if you claim to be an agnostic, then you are saying that knowledge of God's existence or non-existence is unattainable. Thus, if you adhere to a belief system that includes a deity, you are not agnostic.
Many agnostics are closet atheists, unwilling to use the stronger term because of its negative connotations in the vernacular.
Atheists and Agnostics are in a tiny political minority in the United States. Some 90% of the US of A claims to have faith in some deity or another.
Many commentators on the aforementioned diary made claims that this is a political blog, not a religious one, and thus such discussions of faith are inappropriate. This stance is wrong. Religion is a critical component of politics in these here United States. There is a religious litmus test to attain higher office. No president (except perhaps Abe Lincoln, but the evidence is open to debate) has been an atheist or an agnostic, and every President optionally invokes God when he is sworn into office.
The religious right has made no secret of its desire to increase its brand of Christianity in the public sector. The religious left is complicit, so long as it means more money for the charity and outreach work it does. So to say that a diary on religion is inappropriate on a political blog misses the mark.
Of course, the beauty of the dKos community is that even though we hold disparate beliefs, we have fora to discuss them. We might gnash our teeth at each other, but at the end of the day, we are still Kossacks: atheists and theists together, trying to build a better world for us and our children.