Olkahoma Atheists and Religious NeutralityIntroductionOften, in a dialogue between Christians and non-believers, the issue of neutrality in the category of religion is presupposed without much critical consideration. The nonbeliever often appeal to the believer to reject the Bible as a beginning point and instead start with a ‘neutral?position, whatever that might me. Yet, for the Christian, the concept of religious neutrality, when it comes to Christianity is impossible. Furthermore, one can not be religiously neutral towards the Christian God of the Bible. The following example from an atheist publication would serve as an illustration that religious neutrality itself is not religiously neutral, but is in actuality, against Christianity. AOKIn the January 2004 edition of “Athee Okie? the monthly newsletter of Oklahoma Atheists, there appeared something that was quite interesting. There was a picture of a cross that was knocked down with a caption that states, “One step closer to religious neutrality in Oklahoma? (Footnote 1) If there was ever a photographic illustration with accompanying caption that paints an accurate picture of religious neutrality that one would do. In order to take ‘one step closer to religious neutrality? it would mean knocking down the cross, or Christianity. If advancing ‘one step closer towards religious neutrality in Oklahoma?would bring about a sense of neutrality towards religion in general (and specifically from this category, Christianity in particular) the question that arises would be, why then, does the cross have to knocked down? Why this picture (even if its just for symbolical artistic purpose)? Why the hostility against Christianity? Someone from this group of atheists can offer a defense of the newsletter by saying that the group are really not against Christianity but they just want to stop Christianity from being influential in the social and political sphere of Oklahoma. Perhaps among their many motives, it includes the reasoning that not everyone in Oklahoma believes in Christianity, and hence should not be subjected to something they do not believe in. They just want to have an atmosphere of religious neutrality, that’s all. That might seem plausible at first glance. Yet, upon further reflection this form of religious neutrality is still not neutral in its stance towards Christianity. This stance of religious neutrality wants Christianity out of certain realm of human experience, yet Biblical Christianity demands the Lordship of all spheres of life and all things be done for His glory (see 1 Corinthians 10:31), since God created this world and provides the pre-condition for human experience. A fundamental presupposition here is that Christianity is true regardless of people’s subjective feelings or thoughts about it. Contrary to this, the presupposition of this form of religious neutrality would be antithetical to the Christian presupposition, be it manifested as an atheistic rejection, an agnostic orientation that would not submit to the truth of Christianity, or a pseudo-Christian belief that ironically denies the presupposition mentioned earlier. Whatever ways it manifest itself, it would either deny the truth claims of Christianity or that Christian truths are true and applicable, regardless of what others believe or not believe concerning it (examples of Christian truths and values applied by the Christian in a non-Christian culture would be the preservation of the nonbelievers marriage that’s undergoing crisis because God has ordained marriages, treating atheist neighbors with dignity since they are made in the image of God, etc). Thus, the presupposition of religious neutrality is against Christianity. An observation concerning how religious neutrality is in reality against Christianity was made by Cornelius Van Til, the founder of Christian Presuppostional Apologetics, whose thought is worth contemplating in the following excerpt below:
In the same portion of Van Til’s writing, he goes on to give an illustration from the narrative of the fall of man into sin, of how Eve’s neutrality towards God was really against God by negating the exclusive ultimacy of God:
To add further difficulty for those that still think naively that religious neutrality is not against Christianity, we ask the next question, can the methods and means to achieve the goal of religious neutrality in Oklahoma by the devoted atheists be pursued in a neutral fashion? Nothing exists in a vacuum. Fundamental to any changes in society and culture, in order for something to be pushed into acceptance, something else must be pushed out. By the very nature of the dilemma, to advance religious neutrality in the political or social sphere would mean the removal of the religious from the sphere that is the aim of being religiously neutral. Thus, in seeking about to achieve the goal of religious neutrality, the means and method would not be very neutral towards religion or Christianity. The irony here is that in order to achieve religious neutrality in a specific sphere of human experience, the method of accomplishing this would be anti-religious. So how does this group of atheists go about to make sure that Oklahoma would be “one step closer to religious neutrality?
If the quote above was written by Christians, it would be quoted by many atheists groups, the press and watch dog groups that seek the separation of Christianity and the State. If the quote above was written by Christians, many people and perhaps including the Oklahoma Atheists themselves, would be horrified at how militant and aggressive Christians are. The thought that such a quote, if made by Christians, are really aiming for ‘atheistic neutrality?would be laughed at and found ridiculous. Phrases used above, such as ‘infiltrating every level of government and education? ‘inoculate? ‘well-connected operatives? betray nothing neutral but rather aggressiveness in its very language. Interestingly enough, we must remember that the above quote was not made by Christians. Not at all. They were made by atheists, in an atheist newsletter to an atheist core and in the same newsletter that mentioned being one step closer to religious neutrality! Often, critics of the Religious Right warn even to the point of paralleling religious prophets in intensity and frequency, of the threat of the Christian right infiltrating various level of government by operatives, working to produce policies that advance a secret agenda upon the majority and wanting to spread Christian propaganda through the education system. If the quote above shows anything, it shows that the Atheist political agenda in the guise of ‘religious neutrality?is really real, yet is not reported. Though beyond the scope of this essay, the neutrality of these critics is suspicious and not much has been covered in the press or in print of these anti-religion extremists. ConclusionThe newsletter from Oklahoma Atheist is indeed an illustration that religious neutrality itself is not religiously neutral, but is in actuality, against Christianity. The very picture and caption quoted shows the obvious. Further, at the level of presuppositions, this essay demonstrated that religious neutrality is in actuality, not neutral towards Christianity. The means, method and pursuit of achieving the goal of religious neutrality in any particular sphere of human experience is also not neutral but hostile and against Christianity. Religious Neutrality towards Christianity hence, is truly not neutral at all but hostility against Christianity. It is a sin. However, if you repent of your ways, God has provided mercy through the death of Jesus Christ on the cross and your surrender to Him, for He is the Sovereign Lord over all. FURTHER RESOURCES: 1.) “A
Brief Outline Against Religious Neutrality?/a> by Jimmy Li By Jimmy Li Footnote |
|
Last Edited October 20, 2007 0:43
|