Processing Our Parents (and Thomas Jefferson)
Lately I've been thinking about my parents. Thanks to Thomas Jefferson. I'll explain soon... I have been unraveling my parents (my mom and my stepdad to be more exact) for many years now and I've come to understand the ways in which I've become who I am because of and in spite of them. But i guess when it comes to revelations, there's always a few stragglers.
Our parents get first dibs at imbuing us with a world view and I would posit that most children adopt their parents' value systems hook, line and sinker and only dissect them for themselves once they grow older, if ever. Problem is: by the time this 'review' happens, the vast values that our parents installed on our childhood hard drives are wide-spread and almost intrinsic to us so that it can be difficult to discern the gems from the rubbish when sifting through them all. We don't want to throw away the wrong things. So we take our time. And so it has come to pass that I just found another piece of rubbish in there, just the other day.....
It's got to do with Thomas Jefferson. While hauling out whole freighters worth of my parents ideas as I grew older, I always retained the high esteem they held for Thomas Jefferson. This is because I've broadly retained my parents' atheist views and Thomas Jefferson - having coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" - is a hero among atheists. But this summer, I delved deeper into revolutionary history and got to know the real person of Jefferson instead of the atheist hero and – turns out - he's really flawed.
Consistently, Jefferson let his ideals blind him to reality. In his ongoing belief that the French Revolution was righteous, he overlooked its violence and bloodshed. He idealized all things French and despised all things British. He was also an ideologue when it came to domestic politics. When his long time friend John Adams became president and extended an olive branch to Jefferson, then VP, suggesting that the two work together across party lines, Jefferson myopically declined. Worse still, he did so at James Madison's urging instead of his own. He was also a hypocrite. It was Jefferson who said "if i could go to heaven but with a party, i would not go at all". But it was Jefferson who greatly contributed to the development of a bi-partisan system. On a personal level, Jefferson was down-right sneaky. It has been shown that he was personally behind a lot of the libel and slander in the press aimed at his good friends George Washington and John Adams. He denied this, however. He was also incapable of managing his finances and was deeply in debt and living beyond his means at Monticello.
And then there's the slaves...
What's my point? Of course, most people are flawed. That Jefferson was too is not my revelation. Rather it's how, in effect, hypocritical the beliefs of my parents were. As champions of the critical process they, nonetheless, fell for icons. They fervently worshiped Jefferson and co-opted him for their cause. Their cause was anti-religionism. Painfully arrogant toward what they considered the "feeble-minded Christians" and the "silliness of blind faith'', they actually displayed the same unthinking dogmatism of those they so derided. They willfully choose pieces of the truth that suited them and ignored others. They believed religion was at the root of all evil. For proof, they cited the inquisition and other religious wars (but overlooked atrocities that have been ably committed by non-religious regimes such as Hitler's and Stalin's). They dehumanized people of faith with an intolerance that rivaled the religious extremists. They fought churches by getting them to remove church signs that were too close to the road. They threw bibles in the trash. But Thomas Jefferson (and Thomas Paine) could do no wrong.
I believe that I've purged most of my parents' intolerances from my world view. But odds and ends always remain, I suppose, and so the myth of Thomas Jefferson has survived in me. Jefferson's "separation of church and state" was our holy atheist mantra. My parents and I thought we had the right not to be exposed to any religious references in government or public life. But in re-reading Jefferson's letters, I'm not so sure now that that's what Jefferson even meant. And, anyway, it doesn't matter since the 'separation of church and state' -clause is not part of the constitution. 'Freedom of religion' is. And so I've come to believe, in retrospect, that if a U.S. president wants to express his faith during his inauguration, for example, he has that right.* My parents waged warfare against public religious expression. Thomas Jefferson and the 'separation of church and state' comprised their battle cry. I am starting to think, however, that there are better ways to gain acceptance for ourselves as atheists. I don't want to draw battle lines over beliefs as my parents did. I wish to be a constructive being on this earth and work with other constructive beings, no matter their beliefs. So I'm letting go of yet another inherited remnant of rubbish thinking... sorry, TJ! Ya still wrote a lovely independence declaration!
*I might be outright contradicting myself vis-a-vis an earlier blog i wrote. Deal with it.
ADD COMMENT
Glen SalemWednesday, September 1st 2010 3:39AM
Shouldn't "belief" be a moment to moment thing? If you don't believe in something chances are it will never reveal itself to you. Stop believing in everything and see things as they are. I never really believed in God and Heaven....then my parents died. Now I have no doubt. If I let my "beliefs" get in the way I might have missed it. I do not believe in good or moral. That is why I can accept it with open arms and an open heart when it comes. Believe in nothing, then you can believe in everything.
I agree with the response to Al Monday, April 26th 2010 8:53PM
First I agree with Al about two things. Love is good and so is Antje.
I do not understand the logic in approving of religions because many have love as a something they endorse. And who is to decide which believers have the right interpretation of their religion? Do we ask Al which ones we should endorse? Should we endorse only the followers of any religion who disclaim all the teachings and laws of their religion except only love? Are the many sects of Christianity which have a hierarchy, mass holdings of property and significant established wealth to be considered as not having also established power and influence which they seek to maintain? Is there an absence of power in any religion that attempts to spread their dogma? Is not influence a basis of power and do not those who believe their teachings are the only true path not necessarily then seek to influence? One may see love being espoused and somehow occasionally demonstrated as a core belief within certain followers of certain religions, but this does not substantiate tolerance for their existence. There is certainly no universality of love evident in the actions of religious peoples.
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was leery of the Christian folks who just one and two generations before him were starting wars with native American tribes and burning women at the stake as witches in the community established in Plymouth Mass. Or perhaps he was leery of influence by other religious sects who would not be such good Christians and burn witches and kill Indians. Al seems to say that it could be OK to mix religion and governance just as long as the religions that were mixed in were only those who believed in love - and it is only because we can't seem to keep those other "bad" religions or "bad" followers at bay that we must follow Jefferson's dictates. Boy does that miss the point.
To Al JMonday, April 26th 2010 3:16PM
Ok Al, just try to tell me that the 2,000 year long fighting over control of Jerusalem is not based on religions. No one gains significant power in an exclusive control over that particular city; all that is to be gained is a religious heritage which is given a status and value by an organized entity.
I would suggest that most religions are based on control not love. They may in a small part espouse love of your neighbor (remember there was not only one commandment) but they are mostly all organizations who each suppose to have the only true answer and as organizations they are by nature therefore controlling and powerful. Can you name a religion that merely supports love and does not build followings, leadership positions, subservient positions, buildings or statues, rules to live by, myths of final rewards, prophesies, social norms, cash flow and influence in political governance? Religions all involve what to wear, what to think, what to value, what to shun, what to give, what to take, when to come together and how to prey. These are all elements of control and power and this type of power is established within not outside the "truth" of the religion.
No one needs a religious belief or basis to extract from their own experience that love is valued. Do you love suicide bombers? You cannot support the world's religions and then excuse any believers who base their actions on their interpretations of their religion. It is all part and parcel. Baby with the bath water. When people suspend their reasoning to adopt beliefs then you have to decide if those people are excusable in whatever they do or say in relation to those beliefs or they are not. You cannot judge a religion as good or valid if you can excuse or accept some of the believers and followers and chastise others. The histories of religions on this planet absolutely establish that there can never be a myopic following of only the predicate of love within any of them. Religions shall always splinter, evolve (as science shames them to) and include controllers and power brokers. They are all based on a premise that cannot be reasoned. If you are going to accept the validity of religions based on certain tenants (such as love) in the absence of reason then you cannot exclude, excuse or condem any ramification or outcome.
COMMENT ON THIS
Al JSunday, April 25th 2010 7:57PM
First of all, I love you music. I saw you in WI with Richard Shindell and you two were brilliant.
I really must object when people blame religion for war. It is my belief virtually all "religious" wars are in reality nothing more than a continuation of the eternal battle for power and money. "Religion" is a convenient cloak. Too often, religion is highjacked and used as a justification for war. War is about power and money and has NOTHING to do with religion. Just about every religion I have studied has love as its very foundation. Love is, in the end, the only thing of real value. And that is what most of the worlds great religions teach. That doesn't, unfortunately, prevent people from twisting and perverting the great teachings into a justification for their own benefits. And if that means war..."so be it".
My personal choice is to accept the message of love. My glass is half full. My challenge is to live my life in love as much as I can. Jealousy, greed and ignorance may stand in my way, but I will do the best I can.
I think T. Jefferson understood the danger of the political "hijackability" of religion. He knew the danger presented by those you believed their hate was somehow justified by their God. Jefferson knew enough to suggest that political and transitory governing of a society was something very different than the teachings of eternal love and forgiveness. His "separation of church and state" is a brilliant recognition of the reality of living in the imperfect, material world.
JimWednesday, April 14th 2010 12:27PM
FYI. Hitler was a Christian. There are many accurate photos of Hitler at church as well as talking with Clergy.
Peter JamesWednesday, March 10th 2010 2:26PM
Antje,
Wonderful reflection on Jefferson and the deprogramming ourselves. My chief admiration for Jefferson (beyond the prose of the Declaration) lies in his opposition to Hamilton, whose banking scheme set the stage, all those years ago, for our present turmoil.
Madison tells on them all when he says something along the line of, "The mere fact that a man possesses power is sufficient reason to distrust him." While this is too cynical perhaps, it bears considering that politicians are perhaps more flawed than other men in the same way that "some pigs are more equal than others."
Your grasp of the distinction between the "establishment of religion" clause of the Constitution and the "separation of church and state" shibboleth is refreshing to see. Few people inspect the subject with the care you've shown. Thanks.
COMMENT ON THIS
Will you ever blog again?Tuesday, March 2nd 2010 7:08PM
Antje, have you forsaken your web site? I wonder what is on your mind this year. You used to blog quite frequently and tell of your experiences traveling and performing but now you have been silent here for way too long. Obviously you have some fans who read and respond to your postings. Please come back!
How Christian were the founders?Thursday, February 18th 2010 4:51PM
There was a great article in the Sunday New York Times magazine section last Sunday 2/14/10 which is right on point with this blog and everyone's comments. Hope you can all find it with the link I am providing or by searching the article title "How Christian were the founders?" on the NYT web site.
Equally great live!Sunday, January 31st 2010 10:57PM
Got a kick out of my captcha to post this: "and Edwards" Oh Bonny-Johnny, to think I thought once you could be a pretty good president!
Anyway, had the good fortune to find out about a week and a half ago Antje was opening 2 blocks from my office, and made good on my promise to go hear her last night. Awesome--the audience who didn't know her before (almost everyone) was charmed, I heard them talking. Antje--you'd play well in a place like St. Louis with so many of us Germans around, hope you make this a 2nd home of sorts. Might want to drop Miller Lite in favor of Bud Light in the one song though !-) Hope next time Reasonland makes it onto the list, and you're the headliner!
COMMENT ON THIS
Congratulations Antje!!!!!Wednesday, January 20th 2010 4:35PM
I live about 2,000 miles from Boston but I listen to WUMB on the internet on my office computer every day. This week they announced their choice for the top 15 albums of the year and The Near Demise of The High Wire Dancer was #1.
we're all learning...andWednesday, January 13th 2010 9:23PM
When we get out of the glass bottles of our ego,
and when we escape like squirrels turning in the
cages of our personality
and get into the forests again,
we shall shiver with cold and fright
but things will happen to us
so that we don't know ourselves.
Cool, unlying life will rush in,
and passion will make our bodies taut with power,
we shall stamp our feet with new power
and old things will fall down,
we shall laugh, and institutions will curl up like
burnt paper.
—D. H. Lawrence
because,
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase each other
doesn't make any sense.
•Rumi
so,
Tell a wise person or else keep silent.
~Goethe
because,
actions speak louder than words -Thomas Jefferson... ; P (just kidding...he's not the source but i'm sure he said it at least once)
no doubt,
actions speak louder than words but not neary as often -Mark Twain
so let's pick up the pace peeps...lose the squirrely attitides...and share the hugs love and chocolate!
marco poloThursday, January 7th 2010 11:41PM
Antje, just stumbled on your blog. I don't know if you would remember me. I was an early fan on yours. My sister and I saw you at a house concert in Sudbery a couple of years back and I asked you to play Long Way. You started it but forgot the words (or something). I saw you at Joe's Pub last year and was happy to see you now play Long Way as it's a truly amazing song. One of my all time favorites.
At that house concert in Sudbery the houseowners made some remark about voting Democratic at the upcoming election, to which I made some snide remark. I don't care at all for liberal Democrats. I know this is blasphemy in the Church of the Massachusetts Folk Singer Songwriter Sect but maybe now that you are maturing and willing to reconsider your ingrained unthinking prejudices you will reconsider this one too. Obama and Nancy Pelosi are despicable scoundrels (as are to be fair Bush, McCain, and Palin). They all would lock you in prison for toking or shooting up. That's the real tragedy of religion in politics if you ask me (and I know- you didn't ask me). Even though your fellow folk singers are cultlike in supporting the Dumbocrats you're better than them. Do you think Bob Dylan is a brain dead liberal Democrat? I don't know since I never read his books but I would guess against it. Your song Long Way and some others compare with Dylan. I don't know maybe in 20 years you will have proven his equal. Have the courage to think for yourself.
The Fan Man
COMMENT ON THIS
To Case In PointMonday, December 21st 2009 5:52PM
Were the religious able to just find inner peace in their beliefs, shun their otherwise suicidal thoughts, be happy and leave the rest of us alone, that would be a different world than we know today. But that is not going to happen. Your friend who now suddenly loves Jesus in place of developing character will want us all to find that love and he/she will want to stop same sex marriages, outlaw abortions, stop teaching evolution and to live our lives in the ways they decide we should in preparation for the second coming which they will tell you will surely be here any day now. There can be no "live and let live" in their belief system. They cannot be merely introspective or even harmless. They are compelled to organize and to spread the fairy dust.
There is no middle ground such as you are rationalizing. If one believes in virgin births and rising from the dead in order not to be depressed than what type of sanity is found in that existence?
CASE (in point)Wednesday, December 16th 2009 5:14AM
I have to agree, this is conversation to me seems to be a micro scopic equivalent of the broader topic of religion vs. sane people......see right there....I just did it. Here is my story and I have lived on both sides of this coin. My best friend and and I of 20 plus years met after I had run away from a foster home where I was being abused by church going folk, which I had been put because my religious grandparents were aging and I was becoming a teen ager and rock music and obviously satan would soon follow. So I met Tim and within two hours I had my first cigarette, my first taste of booze and my first line of cocaine. Tim and I would go on to perfect our taste for drink and drugs and managed to get it down to a perfection. I would tell Tim of what my beliefs were, at least what my grandparents had told me to believe and he would almost mock me and we would sometimes get into great arguments about it. I was of the opinion that if no one REALLY knows how we came to be, then what is so absurd about taking any belief, faith based or science based? One extremely productive by product did develop out of this extended period of questioning, ridiculing and drug fueled discussion, the two of us made perhaps the most creative kindship with one another than i could ever imagine two people could share. We became a fairly prolific songwriting team and communicate on a level I will never share with anyone again in this lifetime, for that I am certain. I am convined that this happened because we eventually were able to talk about religion and our ultimate fears about mortality without it becoming a statement about our psychological well being. It seems to me, and this is just my opinion, that organized religion as a whole does nothing but separate a massive communion of people who basically share the same fundamental belief. To me there is a big difference between spirituality and religion. I believe that whatever your thoughts are it should be between you and your belie......period. Here is where the coin gets flipped though. Tim and I tried our best to kill ourselves and we nearly did. Many friends in our circle who shared our same "hobbies" did ultimately pass on. Eventually I found a completely new outlook on life and found music was meant to be created by me and sometimes these songs can come in one complete stream in the middle of desert and they have and it is so amazing and intense that I still to this day get up and kind of walk around the room and go...."wow....I don't know who just did that...or where that came from...or who gave me that, but thank you THANK YOU for after all I have done to my body, my temple that I am still allowed to claim this gift. Amazing. Well Tim continued to find magic in cocaine alchohol and was on a definite course of finality. However...somewhere along the line.....he found Jesus Christ and became born again and saved and the whole thing. Now a true friend can only take one shot at this set of hilarious role reversals right? I mean I had to make him feel how hypocritical it all is right? NO! WRONG. I find this another strange kind of magic that I really don't understand, and there may not be a God that I believe in, or at least what I believe may not be understood or believed by another living soul...but I don't care...I don't believe in things FOR YOU! As far as the outcome for my good friend Tim though I had to say.....thank GOD. It might not be for me but for him.....it is his LIFE SAVER...with no exagerration. Whether he is full on faking it until he makes it...I could care less.....I still have my friend. We had to go our separate ways for a few years to kind of "detox" from our old habits around each other but last year we hung out and played some music for the first time in ten years and it was like we saw each other yesterday....I mean he loooks a lot older and I haven't aged a day but i digress....
We didn't get a lot of music done that day we really just talked how human beings on this planet should talk. Why can't we have an exchange of ideas without needing to choose a side and build up tribes to rally around or rail against anything that is different than what we believe. There is magic in the world people, I have seen it.....I write songs. Listen to this gifted artists and you can't tell me you go somewhere and learn that.....that is a gift my friends. Brothers and sisters, and yes I can say that without any kind of religious pretext whatsoever. Take a look at a buddhist point of view or think of kharma.....what comes around goes around. Well yes this may be and the good and the bad of ones life may even out over the course of a lifetime....but it is not for you to understand or direct when that reconciliation will take place....yet you still what???? HAVE FAITH that it will. Live and let live. The person who reads the bible everyday and believes in heaven and the water turning to wine....whatever man....maybe that is what keeps them from sticking a needle in their arm or driving their car off a cliff, and if that is the case.....God bless em
PEACE
JimWednesday, November 25th 2009 9:26AM
I think it's important to view the founder's position on religion in the context of the history of the previous 200 years in Europe. For their time, Jefferson and the lot were extremely radical in their thought insofar as they sought an end to the feudal hierarchy that had thrived in Europe since ... the Romans? The top of that hierarchy was the Pope. However, as seen in Henry the VIII, when the pope is replaced by a King, the result is not much better. Hence the important bit of writing by the drafters of the Constitution that I marvel at because of it's precision, and limitations is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In that way - your parents were right to protest any government money spent on roadside signs that helped to establish a certain kind of Christian norm, or the slogans on our money, or 'under god' in our schools. If we all are free to believe or not to believe in the judeo christian muslim god, or wiccan godesses, or navajo spirits, or nothing of the kind, then programs we fund, that are enacted by Congress, should not help to establish any particular religion.
To Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc. at the time, the recent horrors of religious purges over this or that kind of Christianity were the caution they swore not to recreate here - but the language they used was far broader than "establishment of specific form of Christian religion" - and wisely so.
COMMENT ON THIS
SeanSunday, November 22nd 2009 4:42PM
"Hero worship" is an interesting phenomenon, and one which I suspect none of us is immune to. Jefferson had some very important ideas/ideals which helped shape our nation. However, as you have pointed out, he was a deeply flawed man. When we love what someone has to say, or what they appear to stand for, it becomes easy for us to "forgive" the things we don't like, or pick and choose which elements of the person we will focus on (while conveniently ignoring the rest).
Ultimately, we need to separate the message from the messenger. Ideas and Ideals should hold up because they speak to a greater truth, not because of who originally made the point.
Jefferson's beliefsThursday, November 12th 2009 1:39PM
It is surprising to me that the atheists "claim" Jefferson as an atheist, his personal spiritual beliefs have more often been considered in line with Unitarians and Deists. It makes sense that he, in the midst of exploring and defining and re-working his belief (or non-belief)in a higher power, would feel passionate about a separation of Church and State.
arroganceThursday, November 12th 2009 9:19AM
Atheism does have a long and bloody history which has always made me suspicious of it.
Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and then some.
Peace
COMMENT ON THIS
Spiritual arrogance is abhorrent in any formFriday, October 16th 2009 11:50AM
Religion does have a long and bloody history which has always made me suspicious of it. I think that spirituality is a very personal decision that is really difficult to completely appreciate until you have the emotional, philosophical and intellectual capacity to understand it. In a way it's a shame that we imprint our children with a spiritual belief system before they are really capable of understanding what it stands for and whether or not they truly buy into it and that it suits their needs. I think TJ understood this and while the atheist movement likes to use the poor bastard as a poster child for their cause my sense is that he was a very spiritual man who appreciated the awe of this beautiful planet that we call home and was just as painfully aware of our failings as humans. I think his spirituality was tough to classify in his age. Maybe he'd be a Shintoist or Buddhist if he were alive today?
TedFriday, October 16th 2009 9:17AM
I love history, and so I loved Antje's discourse on Jefferson. I've struggled against an over-religious catholic upbringing all my life, and so I am disposed to love athiests. I also love some christians and jews, and love what they have to say. I laugh at Bill Maher's diatribes with self righteous glee. And I love honest clear music that comes from the heart.
What I don't love is fighting for a point of view. So sit down everybody, and enjoy the music.
Your Truth about Thomas JeffersonSunday, October 4th 2009 10:01PM
It's interesting to me that you are discovering a deeper view of Thomas Jefferson as I have recently done the same. In my new quest to learn about the US presidents, in order, I have read about him from John Adams' point of view as well as what limited biographical information can be assembled on Thomas Jefferson. My reaction to your dissapointment in the Truth about Mr. Jefferson is that the response may be a little extreme.
The best simili I can think of is that people of today's generation may have an ideal, such as living without the use of fossil fuels which polute our planet and destroy the natural environment through the pursuit of additional sources of fuel, yet I do not expect we will fully achieve this ideal in my lifetime. Although I will not likely be able to live my life without the use of these fuels, any action I make to publicize the idea will benefit the people and nature in the future.
Thomas Jefferson is a complicated person, who sought new information and discovery in politics and science. I don't think the information available fully represents the person he was. This does not mean your reaction is not valid as a new point of view on information your have grown up with, but just that of any historical figure, I suspect he may be less understood than others of his time.
COMMENT ON THIS
CaseMonday, August 31st 2009 11:46AM
Wow, so we actually think alike too?!! Are there more of us?! First off I just want to say I owe you a big apology. You see I pride myself on being very hip and "RIGHT" about what is good and true and meaningful in the world of music today and for the most part I think I do a pretty good job. Well last fall I believe it was an artist that is very near and dear to my heart was coming back to play in Seattle an occasion that I don't think I have ever missed including the time he played a place called "The Greatful Bread" which is a pretty hip bakery in Seattles Wedgewood neighborhood. The gentlemen of who I am speaking is the one and only Ellis Paul. I happened to see that he was playing with an opening act....some Annie...or Antie Dovlcourt or something.....I made a big hand wriiten sign, hung it on my fridge and immediate covered it with the latest phone bill or the newest artwork by my seven year old niece. Well THAT is not the crime. I feel somewhat excused from missing this show, as far as Ellis is concerned due to the fact that I attended a show at a place called Missisipi Studios or something like that in Portland last year. What was special about that show is it was literally in a home recording studio which was an atttic in an old house for all intents and purposes, with candlelight and a bristling crowd of about 20 people!!! The BEST show I have ever seen.
BUT the real crime is, not only did I miss the Seattle show but I missed catching onto your amazing talent and purely gorgeous songwriting ability until just a couple of weeks ago. I am a singer songwriter myself and I have to say.......what the frick chick? How do you do that??!! So I apologize but am glad to have discovered you at long last and you definitely insipire me to continue to write great songs.
As far as your post goes I think we should also keep in mind that flaws are flaws and people deal with them or don't deal with them with the only tools they have available to them at the time. My mom had a stroke when I was nine. i was sent to live with my grandparents who were charismatic Christians, spoke in tounges and all that neat circus stuff. I was forced to go to church Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night and Friday night. Even at that young age, I was not buying into what they were selling (I was all stocked up on crazy) but I did find MY God there. My bedroom was an electrical close that was actually INSIDE the church. My grandparents were the custodians so the had a little apartment in the basement but apparently not enough room for me. This church was huge, my grandparents were old and hard of hearing. I can't tell you how many nights I did this but I can tell you every detail about the first night I did it. I snuck up into the main part of the church....walked up onto the huge stage and sat in the darkness or moonlit empty church as just enough moonlight was cast through the enourmous stained glass windows that made up the entire gable ends of both opposite ends. Then I sat and played a gigantic Grand Piano throuhout the night....alone....that is when I met music. That is when I met MY God.
Future generations may look back on our society or this administration and ask questions about Barack Obama and say, how could he have been so great while he allowed a ban on marriage between same sex couples to go unchecked? Or maybe....they won't.
In short.....I totally agree! Thank you for your art!
FirebrandTuesday, August 18th 2009 12:23AM
Funny how you use the world unraveling...I like it. I think it's like peeling the onion. Have been doing somethign similar myself, particularly in my relationship with my father. As a result I've come to see things I blocked out in the past, really critical things I am glad I've examined at 35.
Hope you come to St. Louis sometime and play. I'd overturn the recession that slapped me down 2 years ago for one night and splurge. You'd love McGurk's, an Irish bar known for good music and drafts, but I hope you can land a bigger spot to play in!
Mary JaneFriday, August 14th 2009 3:49PM
This was all interesting reading. I too just discovered this web site. No ones comments struck me as mean spirited or insulting however - just straight forward and challenging.
Tom I think you should be careful suggesting what the founders had in mind and inferring that their decisions or intentions were valid or advisable for us today. It seems common these days for the Fox News commentators, the New Birthers and the Tea Baggers to say they want our government to remain true to the intent of the Founding Fathers and you can hear this explicitly stated now by the intolerant folks who have been duped into disrupting the legislator's town meetings. But be clear about this in case it had not occured to you; the intentions of the Founding Fathers were partly abhorent and repulsive. The Founding Fathers made slavery legal and denied any rights for women including the right to vote.
Megan, you seem to have avoided comment on any specifics that were raised and made you sad. I think the challenges were do you believe there was an ark and/or do you believe the universe was created 9,000 years ago instead of 4 billion or so years ago? I think the discussion was more centered on whether ones "blind faith" includes blind acceptance of the biblical stories and also whether they feel it is appropriate for the government to endorse Christianity by putting In God We Trust on our money. Struck me as a couple of good discussion points. When someone describes their faith as blind it makes discussion almost impossible because there is nothing being defined, debated or defended, but you could indicate if that faith overrides your trust in observation or physics when they conflict instead of just being somehow offended by the question.
I am doing a lot of thinking about what Antje wrote and what everyone else responded with. But I am not sad or insulted by either side of the equasions. It is all good. It is always hard but it should not be intolerable for folks to intelectualize their faith in the same ways that folks without faith intelectualize their comfort with existance.
COMMENT ON THIS
Megan - PSFriday, August 14th 2009 3:32PM
Antje,
I LOVE you voice and style! Beautiful music. "Long Way" describes an entire year of my life almost to the tee! I love it - thank you for sharing your gift!
MeganFriday, August 14th 2009 12:37PM
Well, I have to say from reading the previous comments - I'm very sad.
I was captured by a few of Antje's songs and decided to find out a little more about who this artist is and I stumbled upon her blog.
Then, after a thought provoking entry with which I had agreements and disagreements, I find her to be a respectably open-minded and kind individual. Then I got to the comment section - and the hostility amazed.
I am very invested in the subject at hand - I will say up front, I am an unapologetic devoted Christian woman. I will also say, that the Christian faith, as a whole, is vastly misunderstood by our society. It is not what you see from televangelists and the like - it is a blind faith and a call to a way of life. One that relys on the belief of a loving God, his Son who died and provided a way that we, flawed and broken souls, may not have to spend eternity in separation from God but with God. All he asks is this, that we love Him with all of our hearts, and that we love our neighbor as ourselves.
we cannot do this perfectly - but we try, and I hope that in this comment I convey that attitude myself.
Now, as far as church and state - I agree with Antje on this one. No one should be forced to adapt another belief, however, in this great country we call America, we should have the freedom to express our religion. If that includes placing church signs at the edge of private property lines, preaching from a street corner, or praying in public... that is an expression of religion. The atheists who wish to repress this, are in effect wishing to repress the freedoms which many have fought and died for. Now, if you are an atheist, you should have the freedom to express this as well. If you wish to do so by calling those who are religious, "dumb", "uneducated" and insults like this - then that is your right... but it is not within your rights to take ours away.
What is it about believers having a hope beyond this life that bothers atheists so much? It's as simple as this:
You live your life as you decide - believe or not.
As someone who loves you in the sense that I genuinely have a concern for your soul, I will share with you what I believe and why in the hopes that you too may have life after death. You may accept this or not. But that is your decision. After I have shared this with you, there is nothing more that I can do. The choice is yours.
Why keep fighting, name calling, and hostile chatter over something that is a personal decision? Do you gain anything by convincing me that you're belief (or non-belief) is "right?" In this short time we have to live, why should we constantly be in a battle over this?
I say, lets be thankful that I can be a Christian and not fear persecution - and that you may be an atheist and not be forced into a religion by the state. And leave it at that...
NON BELIEF IS NOT A BELIEFThursday, August 13th 2009 11:32AM
Fred, you and Tom are really projecting to try and suggest that atheists (note the small a) have a belief system and it just makes your case weak. It is just deliberate foolery that I have heard before from TV preachers with the mega churches and their Rolex watches. Therefore one can reasonably associate you with them and make assumptions accordingly. And if like those preachers and George Bush you don't agree that Noah's Ark is just a myth or that carbon dating is irrefutable science then you will just have to go through your life expecting that reasonable, educated people's criticisms of your beliefs will always strike you as arrogant and intolerant. There is just no way around that – it is the head butt of myth vs. reality. People of all faiths or no faiths can exist within our society and I would sacrifice my life to defend that, but belief systems can have no place in the governance of a Republic. Again, if that strikes you as intolerant or arrogant then step back and analyze the beliefs handed down to you by your parents and think about whether the arrogance is not in fact on your side of the equation.
COMMENT ON THIS
TO: Fred and Tom's comments:Monday, August 10th 2009 10:55AM
Your arrogant and hostile tone verifies Tom's comment in his first paragraph; "(some atheists) have tendency to look down on those who do not share their beliefs".
Your further arrogance assumes that you know my motivation: "Fred wants you to assume his beliefs".
My point to Antje was in specific response to her uncomfortable process of understanding her parents value system, which includes being atheists. My encourgement in reading another point of view was that she (an intelligent person) could determine for HERSELF what to believe.
Your intolerence to any other point of view goes directly against Antje's own conclusion in her blog. "I am starting to think, however, that there are better ways to gain acceptance as atheists. I don't want to draw battle lines over beliefs as my parents did. I wish to be a constructive being on this earth and work with other constructive beings, no matter what their beliefs."
Your response totally missed the point of the blog (Antje's ideas) and was nothing more than an opportunity to voice YOUR intolerant and closed minded beliefs.
Fred & Tom's commentsFriday, August 7th 2009 2:25PM
Fred wants you to assume his beliefs and suggests because C S Lewis faltered we all might or should. Snap out of it Fred - C S Lewis was a guy who wrote a couple of fantasy books before he became obsessed with writing just about his concept of a Christian God. Well Fred read some Richard Dawkins and see if you would afford him any creedence. And Tom wants to claim that athiests have beliefs (now that is a truly bizzare concept he is projecting on us) and that our government can or should substiantiate his beliefs. Tom and an awful lot of folks these days (including athiests) use selected quotes atributed to Jefferson to support their particular bent. My reading of Jefferson is that in his public expressions he projected having a faith while in some of his private letters he denied any such beliefs. I do not understand why anyone should follow or respect the writings of C S Lewis or Thomas Jefferson when it comes to things like believing (or not) in Biblical myths which date back to the Bronze Age when no one even knew where the sun went at night. I wonder if Fred choses to believe in Noah's Ark or that the universe is just 9,000 years old or where he decides to pick and choose and draw the lines between "what is written" and reality (reality meaning there was no Ark).
Well I'm with you Antje but I don't mind your parents and others being so stridently focused on the absurdities of religious beliefs as much as it has troubled you. I for one would certainly like to see things like "In God We Trust" taken back off our currency and "Under God" taken back out of our Pledge Of Allegience, just for starters. I love living in a free country but I really detest and fear everything about living in an increasingly religious one.
FredFriday, August 7th 2009 8:43AM
Interesting and thoughtful writing. I'd encourage you to re-consider the entire atheistic belief system your parents handed down to you, instead of just sifting through the details. Check out the writings of C.S. Lewis, an avowed atheist early in life. He converted to Christianity after researching a book project to confirm the basis for his atheistic beliefs.
And for verification of the beauty of God's creation, you should find the nearest mirror. Deal with that!
COMMENT ON THIS
TomWednesday, July 29th 2009 5:13PM
The irony is atheism is in a belief system. Just as people who are committed to a specific religion have a tendency to look down on those who do not share their beliefs; some atheists seem to do basically the same thing -- only in the name of disbelief.
As for Mr. Jefferson and the separation of church and state, I think the real issue was not so much a desire to build a wall between religion and government, but to eliminate the possibility of an official state religion (e.g., the Church of England) in the new democracy they were trying to create. There are numerous references to religious concepts in the early documents used to form the government. Some atheists seem to conveniently over-interpret the church and state thing to mean religion cannot be mentioned in any government context. I don't think that's what the founders had in mind.
ADD A COMMENT