This thread could probably go in Multiculturalism or Media, but it is the spiritual issue that most intrigues me, so I thought I should put it here.
DH and I have been watching "Colonial House"- one of those historical reality shows where they more or less try to send people back in time. Pre-Constitution, many colonial governments forced people to attend sabbath services.
On this show, there was a family- a mixed race Native American husband who grew up on a res, an Italian American wife who was raised Catholic, and their 11 year old son. There was continued friction over their refusal to attend the Christian sabbath services of the colony. The husband said he didn't believe in God, the wife called herself an athiest, but then later said that her religion was nature-based- water, mountains, sun, stuff to that effect.
So. I was left... confused by this. And somewhat annoyed. I turned to DH and said, "You know, this is how the marginalization of traditional Native American religions began, by applying 'atheist' as a perjorative term to what is actually a sophisticated set of spiritual beliefs, many of which are Earth based or Earth influenced."
Then, later in the series, some Wampanog Indians show up, and their elder more or less said the same thing- "We wouldn't convert to Christianity, so we were just heathen savages".
I guess I have a narrow view of atheism and a wide view of God. I think of atheism as a lack of belief in any higher power or greater force. If you are a Wiccan who uses spells to appeal to the universe, then, to me, you aren't an atheist. If you are a pagan who worships Mother Earth, then, to me, you aren't an atheist. If you practice an ancient tribal religion (or a modern variant- Santeria or Voodoo, maybe?) where you concern yourself with keeping various ghosts or spirits happy, then to me, you aren't an atheist. If you are an agnostic, you aren't an athiest.
Do folks follow where I'm heading with this?
I guess I thought that you need not believe that God is some Zeus like figure in the sky to be part of the huge community of people who believe in something.
So, as weird as this sounds, should I have a broader definition of what it means to be an atheist? Because, I'll be the first to admit, my definition is pretty narrow. I guess I came to this conclusion because I have known several people who left the religions of their childhood, more or less as agnostics, and were told by their families and former religious communities that since they were no longer X religion (each one, of course, being the one true faith), that made them atheist. And even though they were leaving that religion, they just took that definition on. (Three different people, all of whom were unknown to each other, one raised Catholic, one Mormon, one Jehovah's Witness, all had this same experience.)
I found this to be ridiculous, and so I think this is where my narrow definition of atheism comes from.
Am I right? Wrong? Even close?
DH and I have been watching "Colonial House"- one of those historical reality shows where they more or less try to send people back in time. Pre-Constitution, many colonial governments forced people to attend sabbath services.
On this show, there was a family- a mixed race Native American husband who grew up on a res, an Italian American wife who was raised Catholic, and their 11 year old son. There was continued friction over their refusal to attend the Christian sabbath services of the colony. The husband said he didn't believe in God, the wife called herself an athiest, but then later said that her religion was nature-based- water, mountains, sun, stuff to that effect.
So. I was left... confused by this. And somewhat annoyed. I turned to DH and said, "You know, this is how the marginalization of traditional Native American religions began, by applying 'atheist' as a perjorative term to what is actually a sophisticated set of spiritual beliefs, many of which are Earth based or Earth influenced."
Then, later in the series, some Wampanog Indians show up, and their elder more or less said the same thing- "We wouldn't convert to Christianity, so we were just heathen savages".
I guess I have a narrow view of atheism and a wide view of God. I think of atheism as a lack of belief in any higher power or greater force. If you are a Wiccan who uses spells to appeal to the universe, then, to me, you aren't an atheist. If you are a pagan who worships Mother Earth, then, to me, you aren't an atheist. If you practice an ancient tribal religion (or a modern variant- Santeria or Voodoo, maybe?) where you concern yourself with keeping various ghosts or spirits happy, then to me, you aren't an atheist. If you are an agnostic, you aren't an athiest.
Do folks follow where I'm heading with this?
I guess I thought that you need not believe that God is some Zeus like figure in the sky to be part of the huge community of people who believe in something.
So, as weird as this sounds, should I have a broader definition of what it means to be an atheist? Because, I'll be the first to admit, my definition is pretty narrow. I guess I came to this conclusion because I have known several people who left the religions of their childhood, more or less as agnostics, and were told by their families and former religious communities that since they were no longer X religion (each one, of course, being the one true faith), that made them atheist. And even though they were leaving that religion, they just took that definition on. (Three different people, all of whom were unknown to each other, one raised Catholic, one Mormon, one Jehovah's Witness, all had this same experience.)
I found this to be ridiculous, and so I think this is where my narrow definition of atheism comes from.
Am I right? Wrong? Even close?
:
: Holding two sick boys but I wanted to at least sub!!
