I believe that institution of religion asks this of their followers, although many, many religious believers chose to take religion a personal rather than an institutional charge. I believe there is a naturalness to introspective and personal understanding of god, and at the point where one is seeking to understand rather than to obey, I personally believe far more good comes than harm.

In that sense I think a belief in god is ultimately a belief in the finest parts of the human being and one’s own experience. Earnestly seeking to understand a life is perhaps the highest, most humble calling we may ask of ourselves. However, when one begins to forget that, as an example, Kali is a meditation rather than a physical being, the enlightenment quickly devolves into human sacrifice.

As I said, my comments are directed toward the institution of religion, and particularly large, central bodies. There are two kinds of sincere, devout followers of religion in my estimation – those who seek to understand themselves and the world, and those who seek direction and satisfaction in the mindless posturing of the herd at the behest of a dogmatic shepherd. I hope that makes my meaning clear.

Best,

Ben

Thanks for the clarification. I will stick by my friends at UD as I know them to be quite thoughtful and not dismissive. Their offers to SOFT to present and be a part of other venues is a sincere effort to accommodate an expression of atheistic views. It seems that to give full recognition to SOFT is a step to far for them. I know they are often criticized for not being “Catholic” because of their recognition of other religious groups and their recognition of an LGBT group. Perhaps they are being pragmatic here as opposed to living up to ideals. I don’t know that for certain, but I know they tend to lean, in most cases, toward inclusion as opposed to exclusion. I am glad I don’t have to make this decision.

Your charges against some religious would ring true with Jesus who was quite critical of some who proclaimed righteousness. He was known to call more than a few people out for their abuse of religion and religious laws to harm others.

It’s been good working with you. I hope we get the chance again someday although I believe we will most often be found on the same side of debatable issues.

Peace,
aj

I understand where you’re coming from, Ben, but I can’t agree with you. I’ve known many true intellectuals, in the deepest sense of the word, who maintain a religious identity but don’t allow it to short circuit their intellectual curiosity or critical thinking in this way. Even if religious identity has these tendencies, they aren’t determinant.

From what I’ve read here, you seem like a perfectly decent, cordial, and introspective person. I think my paragraphs below will make the meaning of my previous comments clear.

As with so many things, when religious belief, or for that matter, the lack thereof, fosters a strong desire to deal fairly and compassionately with others, motivates one to good works, better oneself, etc., I think it celebrates the most basic aspects of what it means to be a human being. Yes, we all need help and the shoulder of others to make it in our world. Religion has in many ways been a beautiful expression of the reality that we are creatures of metaphor, and that gift allows us to see our world not as a place of pain and waste but as a wonderful and spiritual field of which we are a part.

However, with the glory of the Hermetic comes the threat of the Mosaic, and with that concretization comes irrationality, pain, suffering, and incongruity. This is wellspring of duplicitous thought,as one can easily use a spiritual experience as a license declare one’s moral sovreignty over others. A well-engendered religious belief should not insist on historicity, as once it does that it lose the message and value of its spiritual teachings. It’s a fine line, but when crossed we quickly see things like gay and lesbian couples denies marriage rights on no grounds other than “the Bible says so”.

So I am clear: Many, many people who have faith express it as a powerful tool for personal growth, guidance, and betterment of the world around them, and generally treat their faith as a lense through which they view a contemporary and progressive world. However, there are still many who would use it as a cudgel as they scramble for moral and metaphysical high ground, and they use the ideas, beliefs, and even lives of others as steps to the summit. This must be loudly and catagorically opposed.

The charges I am making against UD are precisely of this category – an inconsistent and wilfully dismissive set of policies concerning their religious beliefs which are markedly duplicitous and smack of a superficial callousness to the word “athiest.” I feel that the attempt to understand this group has been lost by UD at the word rather than the intention.

Finally, it’s been a pleasure talking with you. Personally, I think you are right in that the relatively harmless nature of your comments has blown up into something that distracts from the discussion of the much more interesting topic of religious and non-religious debate. If my marriage counselling has taught me anything, it’s that people far to often get lost in the perception of slight instead of dealing with the real problem in a forgiving and empathetic way:)

Best,

Ben

You are asking me to answer policy questions for the University. I am a volunteer and supporter of the University, I am not an administrator who can answer the questions posed. I believe the University can draw the line where and how it wishes. I may have drawn the line elsewhere in either direction but where I would draw it does not matter.

Nick, as I have said, I believe the university does benefit from the conversation with others who don’t agree with or think like the majority. I implore you to take advantage of social media and the venues that have been offered to you. It might not be perfect, but it’s a start and you may slowly win the administration over with your respectful discussion. It’s worth a shot.

Ben, religion certainly has its faults, but your broad brush ignores the huge variations in religion, religious people and spiritual people who believe in God but don’t practice a specific religion. As for me, I believe God requires me to be responsible, strong, inquisitive of the unknown and caring. I carry way too much guilt to accept the charge that I don’t care about my own duplicities or my many other sins. I need the church to teach, encourage and re-energize me. You may call that weakness, but I don’t know anyone who can navigate life without the help of others.

I am not threatened or offended by your atheism. I agree that atheists are just as likely to behave in a moral manner as those who claim to be theists. As you all have pointed out, I am subject to fault and error and am in need of more work toward loving more fully.

I wish all of you gentlemen peace and good health.

aj

I submit to your that this is the single most dehumanizing element of religion, and it is born of the belief that man is created weak, sick, ignorant, and without the grace of divine intervention unable to improve his lot in life. The athiest offends the religious man not because he denies god, but because he accepts upon himself the power and responsibility of his own destiny which the religious man demands he ascribe to the diety. This decision to become the shepherd and renounce the life of the lamb is precisely the thing that kills the god and his cult, because once man declares he is born strong and capable he no longer needs the church to guide him.

On to the issue itself, the more I think about this the more I am troubled by it. I wouldn’t really have a problem at all if the University decided that as a matter of its Catholic identity, it wouldn’t allow or recognize clubs that dealt with religious issues that were not Catholic, or not Christian. That’s not the policy I would pursue, but it’s a reasonable one that wouldn’t really bother me.

But that’s not what UD has done. They’ve gone down the path of ecumenicalism and pluralism. There have been groups from non-Christian religions on campus. In that environment, denying this group is singling out athiests and non-believers in a way that I find very troubling. It’s suggesting that they are somehow ‘beyond the pale’ of official toleration, while others who adhere to a belief system that denies the essential truth of some Catholic beliefs, such as Muslims and members of the Jewish faith, are not. This is an ugly message to send to a group of your students, and I find it very troubling that the administration is comfortable with this message. (And if this is not the message they’re trying to send, they really should explain themselves–and as Ben’s efforts haven’t produced a substantive response, they seem unconcerned about the need to clarify the message they’re sending).

AJ Wagner seems to see things this way too, as his article is free of any call to revoke official recognition for Muslim or Jewish groups. So my question to Mr. Wagner is this (since UD’s administration won’t give an answer): what principle is being used to discriminate between groups that deny the truth of some Catholic/Marianist teachings? What is it about Atheist/secular/’freethinker’ groups that’s threatening to that identity in a ways that Muslim and Jewish groups are not?

I’m reminded of the Christian philosopher John Locke’s famous “Letter Concerning Toleration”. Written in 1688, it was one of the first pleas for the political toleration of religious diversity. Many of his arguments became influential in the American political tradition, and left their stamp on our founding moment. But Locke, like the UD administration, was leery of extending this toleration to non-believers. He feared that they were simply too dangerous to be tolerated, as they feared no divine retribution, they would simply be too amoral to be tolerated. Today, we know that such fears are unfounded; indeed, it’s been shown in numerous studies that non-believers are roughly as “moral” as followers of religious traditions in their behavior. I’m assuming it isn’t a replication of Locke’s fear that keeps the administration from placing this particular non-Catholic group in a special category, but I wish they’d explain what makes atheist groups uniquely threatening.

I am also a member of Freethought Dayton and I would like to state that I fully support Brandon and Nick in their quest to form a freethinkers group at UD. In addition, I want to clarify that the following is my opinion and my opinion alone and does not reflect the official stance of Freethought Dayton as a group. The same holds true for any other Freethought Dayton commenters here.

Mr. Wagner, I’m not sure what to make of your editorial. I mean, it’s bizarre. You seem to misunderstand the entire situation.

You accuse Brandon and Nick of lying about their true motives. You state that their one and only motive was confrontation rather than the obvious motive of trying to form a group. You use fighting terms to frame what you perceive to be an insult to UD (“The University of Dayton (UD) has been sucker punched”), which is completely unnecessary and inflammatory. In your list of reasons why you believe that confrontation is SOFT’s only goal, you mischaracterize the sequence of events and even the events themselves. You later go on to say that it would be no more appropriate for UD to allow an official student atheist group than it would be for them to allow a racist student group. Your message there is clear: atheists are on the same level as racists. That is a blatantly biased point of view and as an atheist I think it is sad and hurtful.

As for the reasons you give for coming to the conclusion that SOFT wanted nothing but confrontation, well let’s take a look at those:

“1)SOFT has applied to be partners in the secular movement’s charge against faith”
They went to the Secular Student Alliance for advice and assistance because that’s what the SSA does. And the SSA has dealt with many cases where the groups they were advocating for were met with considerable resistance from the administration. SOFT went into this not looking for confrontation, but expecting resistance and, what a surprise, that’s exactly what they got, and for completely bogus reasons (more on that later). They did not enlist the SSA to attack faith, but to assist them on getting their group started.

“2) because they planned for confrontation with the university administration before applying for recognition”
Again, there is no evidence whatsoever that they planned for confrontation. This is merely a baseless assertion on your part. You say that they admitted to this, but no where in the Dayton paper or the Flyer News have they made this statement. How did you come to the conclusion that they admitted it when they never did?

“3) because, as of Sunday night, SOFT has yet to organize a “discussion of religious issues from a secular point of view” which is their stated reason for existing.”
They’ve now held a meeting so you can scratch off that bit of “evidence” for their setting UD up for a “sucker punch” because they want nothing but confrontation from your list.

And please Mr. Wagner, explain to me how recognizing an atheist group by UD is any different from their official recognition of a Muslim group and a Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexual/Transgendered group? These two groups also hold beliefs “in direct contrast to what we [UD] believe” (Quote from Director of Student Life, Amy Lopez-Matthews regarding SOFT). To allow these groups to exist while not allowing SOFT to exist as an official student organization shows a blatant inconsistency. If UD’s reasoning really is as Lopez-Matthews says, then she’s implying that the Muslim and LGBT groups should not exist either. I know that’s not what Branden and Nick want. They simply want to have a campus recognized group with all the rights and perks that go along with that: being able to advertise for their group on campus, being able to use campus buildings for free for their meetings, and whatever other benefits an officially recognized group receives.

Mr. Wagner, your post is yet another example of a situation where non-believers speak up for themselves, and the religious hear nothing but yelling.

Perhaps you can apply some empathy and realize that you really do owe Brandon and Nick an apology.

You have impressed me by your responses. You seem sincere and willing to take responsibility. I accept your explanation of warning the administration about the article in the Flyer News. For that reason I apologize for the “sucker punched” comment. I still believe the action was confrontational but, as with my original argument, I want to get past the confrontational argument and get to the discussion.

As I said, I think the discussion of atheism has value for people of faith. You and Nick have something important to share. I hope you take advantage of the administration’s offers for dialogue and keep pressing forward with SOFT as an unrecognized campus organization. It may not be everything you want, but your respect for their position and their respect for yours can result in something of interest and value for everyone on campus.

peace,
aj