What follows is an article taken from here: http://dailyrumination.blogspot.com/2008/08/salman-rushdie-letter-to-6-billionth.html. I don't know if this is the origin of the piece or not but that is where I saw it. edit: this is the wikipedia of the man who wrote it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie As you'll soon see the piece deals with two questions I'm sure we've all asked ourselves: "How did we get here?" and "And, now that we are here, how shall we live?" It is slated towards a decidedly atheist viewpoint. The article: I have read this twice now. Once when I first found it and once while writing this post. My own religious convictions are a little scattered at the moment. I'm not exactly sure what to believe. I think the article is well written despite the over usage of what I call "dictionary words". The meaning of the article is simple enough to me. At the current moment I'm trying to decipher where I stand on it. I think it makes some valid points and I also believe it is shoving a view point onto a yet unborn individual. I think this is unfair. For someone like myself who is seeking answers to come upon something like this is one thing. For someone to post this to an unborn person saying that religion is wrong and that we should put the "stories back into the books, put the books back on the shelves, and see the world undogmatized and plain" seems a little unfair to the unborn for several reasons. 1) They say to "Live in your own time, use what we know and, as you grow up, perhaps the human race will finally grow up with you and put aside childish things". If the person does not know religion how can they decide against it? 2) They say "To choose unbelief is to choose mind over dogma, to trust in our humanity instead of all these dangerous divinities". To choose unbelief is to make a personal choice that either A) you never agreed with what was going on in the first place or B) you gave it a shot for yourself and didn't agree to what was going on. It should never be "fred told me that dogma is ridiculous and so I'm steering clear of it". 3) They claim "it comes down to your willingness to think for yourself." The whole article seems aimed at trying to make the decision for the unborn; not giving it a chance to see what we as humans know both about ourselves and what we believe we know about the divine. 4) They claim that "If anything, the sheer out-of-step zaniness of religion leads the religious to insist ever more stridently on the importance of blind faith." Which completely contradicts the Buddhist philosophy/spirituality as roughly quoted by the Buddha "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." I do agree with the article in that I have felt the following: I have sometimes felt trapped by previous religious convictions. I've felt that because I enjoy reading a particular text of religious scripture that I must follow that path twenty four hours a day seven days a week. We all make mistakes and no one is perfect but subscribing to a particular doctrine not only shapes my spiritual life but it shapes my personal life as well. So long as I'm wanting to follow along side by side to whichever good book it was I may have slid up against that evening. I do think that there are some places who take their spirituality too far. The fundimentalists for pro choice doctors is a great example. I have more but this is all I can think of for now. I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts one way or the other. Please keep it civil I really do not want this thread to be locked.
Honestly, my first thought as I read this was "Get one little death sentence against you and you lose your sense of humor!" Rusdie has of course had a death sentence from his "Satanic Verses" for what 20-30 years now? At one level I understand what he is attempting. He has seen "faith" run amok more than most folks have. And I suppose an argument could be made that if the problem is most folks haven't truly followed their faith then if a faith is that hard to follow what sense does it make to try? Yet, Rusdie still tries to have an ethic for humanity without a religious underpining and I don't think that works. I remain a practicing Chjristian who strives daily to understand my place in creation and what to do about it. Following the faith is not easy and I forgo the simple rationalazations which lead to crusades. Following a dogma/doctrine/sacred texts is hard but I believe doing it well and faithfully is the right thing to do and ultimately is better for that creation. Thanks for the chance to have this discussion. I regret I will be away for three weeks and will miss most of it.
I will comment on this fully later but I did read it. I am up, my day is rolling and I have to leave for work in an hour which means breakfast, brushing and the usual. If you are away and the discussion starts rolling come back and jump in wherever you find it at that time. Your discussion is eagerly anticipated.
I leave tommorrow after worship for two weeks vacation and a week of our biennial Churchwide Assembly. I don't have a laptop and may not have computer access again until I get home, late on 8/24. If I do get access, I will check in on the discussion, Thanks again for posting this.
Interesting piece, gap. First of all, writing to an unborn child is merely a literary device. In fact, this letter is for everyone but that child, so to label it unfair is missing the point. Secondly, it tackles the great quandary of Atheists; how do you "convince" people to think for themselves? That's were the piece failed, because it can't be done. Lastly, I agree with Ohio, Salman's Atheism does seem to be born of anger and mistrust of religion, based on the things he's witnessed. However, that is not a true Atheist. Being an Atheist out of anger or hate is no different than being a Christian out of tradition...which is to say, pointless. Coming to gripes with humanity's purpose, is what finding a religion(or Atheism) is all about. If you've settled on one for any other reason than that, then you haven't found anything at all. And that search and destination is truly an individual experience.
While I believe everyone has the right to believe whatever they chose to believe. I question his right to give advise to anyone much less a new born after the following quote: Out of the 5,999,999,998 of the rest of us just what makes him think he is worthy or smart enough to make that judgement call? I'm sorry, but that kind of sarcasm only turns me off.
As it has been pointed to me in this thread and elsewhere where I have posted this article it is not meant to be taken at literal value and should be taken symbolically. Of course it is not to the unborn child. That is ridiculous. Many of my points still stand despite it not being written for the unborn child. If you take that equation out I still stand by my comments. It seems fueled by a particular viewpoint and also seems to thrust that viewpoint upon others, regardless of age.
Ok then what did you really mean by this, because I am confused: Please understand, I'm not trying to insulting or combative. Its just, by waht you wrote, that seemed to me, what you meant. Yes. However, is it possible to right a piece like this without coming from a viewpoint and/or trying to convince someone of said viewpoint? Or am I discussing this on a -147 level and you're discussing it on a +798 level?
It is what I meant at the time. I thought about it and obviously it is not meant for an unborn child. It is possible it could be more rhetoric than anything though that's not the way it comes off to me.
Thats my point! If you want to debate an issue, that is one thing, if you want to tell me how to think and add I'm stupid if I don't think that way then we have a real problem. Even if you have some valid points to make you've lost any standing with me that you might have gained before hand.
I agree. There are ways to come off sounding angry or upset towards religion without considering the rest of humanity stupid. Having issues with your own spirituality or people who practice spirituality as a whole is one thing. Condemning them all to stupidity is another. He obviously has an issue with both.
