UPDATE: A commenter suggested Progressive religious people should work on keeping religion out of govt. Perhaps you would like to know about the organization dedicated to that, Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It was started by religious people in the 60s. Check them out here http://www.au.org/.
A diary on the rec list attempts to explain atheism in order to refute the charge that dogmatic atheism is just as dangerous as dogmatic Christianity.
In a recent diary, someone made the statement that von Brunn was an atheist as evidence that "dogmatic atheism" is just as dangerous as dogmatic christianity, or something along those lines.
I have seen nothing in the media that offers evidence that von Brunn was driven to murder by his disbelief in a god or disinclination to practice religion. I agree that such an equation of atheism is a basic misunderstanding of how ideologies can play a part in inspiring particular courses of action.
Certainly the atheism of Stalinist Russian leaders allowed them to fear no negative consequences in the afterlife for whatever they did in this life. In this way the atheism of the Stalinists functioned in the same way religion functions for those who believe religion justifies or even encourages the killing of enemies. Neither the Stalinists or the 9/11 hijackers feared punishment in an afterlife.
There are many among us in religious communities who strongly believe that this type of belief system--the belief that religion encourages and justifies murder of those who disagree with us--is a perversion of religion.
However, atheists who blog their "explanations for atheism" for the most part are content to overlook the conflicts and debates raging in every religious tradition that I know of. I just don't get why so many atheists lump all religious people together as idiots who believe what we want to believe rather than seeing religious groups for what they really are-- diverse communities that include many rational beings capable of empirical reasoning.
I am a member of a religious congregation. I also believe strongly in the efficacy of the scientific method. Why am I part of a religious group? Because it works for me. I dropped out as a teen but I missed the sense of community, the songs, and the participation in rituals. I grew up in a more traditional and somewhat conservative congregation but when I was in college I found that there were congregations that encourage the use of logic and support progressive causes. I have been part of a number of these congregations since then. Each time I have moved I have found it easy to connect to this community--not only of people in my own faith, but in interfaith groups.
For me, and for the progressive religious people in all faiths, religion is not about belief in the sense of "I don't believe in Unicorns." I don't believe in Unicorns, either. Religious faith is instead about belief in the sense of, "I believe in truth, justice, and freedom."
As for the Holy books, what I get from their stories of war, incest and betrayal is that humanity has not changed much in the several thousand years of recorded history. To me the stories are filled with metaphors and examples that enrich my understanding of humanity and the nature of existence. Do I literally believe that Moses talked to a burning bush? Not really, but I don't put it in the same category as tales of sightings of the Loch Ness monster, because the story of Moses is an archetypal tale about how a regular guy can become a leader. Sometimes a regular guy with a somewhat sketchy past has just the right stuff to lead his people. I believe this so strongly that I voted for one such guy in November, and he is now our president.
My personal experience and belief is that the real problem is not faith, but blind faith. Blind faith in anyone or anything is dangerous. What do I mean by blind faith? One of my friends (who happened to be an atheist) suffered from hemophilia. Like many hemophiliacs, he placed blind faith in his doctors, the Red Cross, and the pharmaceutical industry. Long story short, all of those institutions turned out not to be worthy of such trust. Many like my friend ended up with HIV, and some passed it on to their spouses and kids because they had put absolute faith and trust in these authority figures. My friend figured all this out and ended up initiating a lawsuit against big pharma, but sadly didn't live to see the whole thing finally get settled in court.
As for my God concept, I don't really have one. I've decided that trying to conceive of God is beyond the limits of the feeble human mind. Maybe whatever we humans evolve into next (if we don't go extinct) will be better at it. And yes, I know what many atheists think--that they are the more evolved among us. I know this because I have read it in a million blogs and web comments and even in personal ads on Match.com. If you feel smug and superior in your atheism and spend energy trying to convince others that you are right and the rest of us are ignorant or misled, then I am in fact right now rolling my eyes at you. I am less frightened by these individuals than by religious fundamentalists, but I am almost as annoyed by them. I certainly don't believe in a vengeful or jealous supernatural being who interferes in human affairs. I do pray for good to happen in the world. I don't know where my prayers go but I do believe that putting out good energy, whether through thoughts,words, or deeds, is a good thing.
How many religious people share my viewpoint? It's difficult to gauge. The Center for Progressive Christianity lists 442 affiliated congregations (all affiliates are not included in their directory.) There are others, like me, who share their viewpoint but have not chosen to join this particular organization. The membership of my faith community numbers in the millions. About half of the churches have joined our God is Still Speaking campaign, an advertising campaign to welcome those who embrace an open-minded expression of religion. I'd guess there are more of us than there are user IDs on Daily Kos. Millions, probably, but probably not hundreds of millions. Maybe not even tens of millions. Nevertheless, when I read diaries that dismiss progressive religious people as insignificant and end up saying "when I criticize religion of course I'm not talking about the liberals" I feel marginalized. I expect Pat Robinson to try and marginalize my viewpoint, not fellow Koassacks and political progressives. Is Eli Weisel insignificant? Howard Dean? Barack Obama? George Tiller? Malcolm X? Coretta Scott King? All of these are my fellow religious progressives. They don't seem insignificant to me.
Those among you who are atheists are probably wondering why I bother with religion. Why do people do anything? Why do people play video games, or act in plays, or go bowling? Because we are free to pursue happiness in our own ways. America was founded by a coalition of people who believed that people's religious practices (or lack on interest in religious practices) were, within reason, a personal matter in which the state should not meddle, and that religious communities should likewise not be allowed to control the state. I spent a few years as a teen buying into "religion is one of the great evils of the world" thing. Now I wish I could believe it is all that simple. I no longer believe that waving a magic wand and getting rid of religion would change much of anything. In a few weeks the oppressors and manipulators of the world would find another justifiction for controlling the fearful and gullible among us--nationalism, superior intelligence, race, height, eye color, gender--just pick one. They've pretty much all been used at one time or other. One thing I've learned is that evil is persistent, and resists facile explanations for its existence and perpetuation. The allegory about evil in the story of Adam, Eve and the serpent is frighteningly accurate: give people everything they need and some of them will find the one thing they can't have tempting and go after it. Evil is so slippery that institutions designed to root out evil inevitably become corrupted and require periodic reform movements to remain even somewhat good. Religion is just exhibit A. Other examples: the Democratic party, the United States of America, and the Boy Scouts. I don't believe anarchy works but given the track record of organizations, it does seem appealing at times. I find I'm best at working at reform from inside the system. Others come at it as outside agitators. Hey, whatever works. We need both kinds of reformers.
For the most part I find the analysis and attempts by atheists to reform religion disappointing at best. As outsiders you have a role to play in offering an unbiased critique. First, however, you have to learn what is actually happening in the religious world. You need to read books and magazine articles, and not just listen to soundbites and make facile assumptions. Then you need to make a genuine attempt to understand the appeal of religion. Hey, I don't love NASCAR or even like it, but I get it. (And not in a "dumb people like fast cars" way, either. I get that it is an exciting and complex sport.) As an environmental activist I know that saying "NASCAR is dumb--ban auto racing!" won't work. I also need to be aware of the pro-environmental explorations going on within auto racing. Then and only then am I able to persuade and influence NASCAR fans to embrace the greening of their passion. The same is true of religion. If you hope to end the problems religious fundamentalists cause, you need to develop some basic empathy.
To sum up, I think that progressive religious people, atheists, and agnostics have every reason to be allies in the fight for societal and political reforms that we can all easily and strongly agree upon. I'd like to see Kossacks embrace each other as allies without trying to convince each other to let go of deeply cherished beliefs and practices that in many cases we have been been reflecting upon critically for decades.