Note From Father-In-Law

[★ Citsonga ★]

Well, yesterday in the mail I received a little note from my father-in-law (a chaplain) which said:

 

I love you and care deeply about you, and that is something the atheist cannot give you. They enjoy a heady debate about God's existence but have no heart or concern for you or your welfare. All of creation confirms that there is God. Only a fool says there is no God. And I know deep down inside you are no fool.

 

(Underlinings in original)

 

He also included a photocopy of an article by Anne Coulter entitled "If you can find a better deal than Christianity, you ought to take it" (with several parts highlighted).

 

Anyway, I just emailed him this reply:

 

I am a bit perplexed by the note you sent me. I don't recall ever mentioning atheists to you, so if I have, it would have had to have been years ago and it would have been negative toward them. As such, why do you feel the need to try to convince me that atheists are scumbags?

 

You start off your note by saying, "I love you and care deeply about you." I do appreciate your care, and please know that I love and care about you too. But what follows that statement is a bit disturbing.

 

You say, "...and that is something the atheist cannot give you. They... have no heart of concern for your welfare." Are you really suggesting that no atheist can love or care for someone? Are you really suggesting that they are all heartless? Do you really think it's wise to broad-brush an entire group of people like that?

 

Do you not see that such broad-brushing is a form of prejudice? Do you not see that it is erroneous to project such negative assumptions onto people you have never met and know practically nothing about?

 

I don't doubt that you mean well and that you believe you're correct, but step back a moment and think about what you've done. Try putting it into a personal context for yourself. There are people who say that all Christians are heartless. That probably bothers you, doesn't it? As a victim of prejudice yourself, you should be able to understand that prejudiced attitudes are morally reprehensible, are they not? Understanding this, then, wouldn't it be a bit unwise to turn around and be prejudiced toward others?

 

The fact of the matter is that those who say that all Christians are heartless are wrong. Equally true to that, though, is the fact that those (such as yourself) who say that all atheists are heartless are also wrong.

 

Whether or not someone is caring is not based on what worldview he/she ascribes to. You will find both nice and not-so-nice (sometimes downright mean) people among any sizeable group, be it Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, deist, atheist, agnostic, or whatever. The fact that someone believes the Christian worldview does not automatically make that person caring, nor does the fact that someone does not believe the Christian worldview automatically make that person heartless (or vice-versa).

 

Speaking of heartlessness and theism/atheism, it's interesting to note that the vast majority of atrocities that have been committed have been done in the name of God (be it one god or another). How many atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism?

 

I must admit that I also used to have a prejudiced attitude toward atheists. Without ever knowing any personally, I had projected assumptions onto them that I was conditioned to believe. As such, I can understand where you're coming from. I have been able to move away from that prejudiced attitude, though. Can you?

 

Similarly, I also used to have prejudiced views of Democrats. And I know that you previously forwarded an email that exhibited prejudiced views of Republicans. Clearly, the world of politics is another area where people broad-brush others. Prejudice can come in many forms, and I think we would all be wise to try to move beyond such prejudices. (As a side note, my personal political views are in limbo right now.)

 

In fact, how can people of different viewpoints ever understand each other and have reasonable discussions about their views if they falsely project attitudes onto their opponents rather than trying to understand where they're coming from? I know it can be very difficult to think outside the box, but we really do need to.

 

Your note also said, "They enjoy a heady debate about God's existence." Are you suggesting that using one's head to think critically is a bad thing? Do you really think that God would give mankind the brains to think rationally and then demand that we reject using those brains? In fact, the Bible even says, "Come now, let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18).

 

I'd bet that you would want people of other faiths to evaluate their beliefs critically, wouldn't you? You don't want people to have "blind faith" in Islam, do you? You don't want people to have "blind faith" in Buddhism, do you? If you'd want them to use their heads, then why would you make a negative comment about atheists using their heads on the issue of faith? Have you examined your faith critically?

 

Your note says, "All of creation confirms that there is God." That's actually an assumption, be it true or false. Even if true, it does not prove any particular God. Muslims see it as evidence of Allah, do they not?

 

Why is it that different areas of the world have different religious roots, and to this day have different prominent religions? The natural world obviously doesn't tell anyone to believe a specific faith. Do you think that it's merely coincidental that the vast majority of people who grow up in a particular religious environment adopt that particular religion?

 

Your note proceeds to say, "Only a fool says there is no God." That's a common quote taken from Psalm 14:1 & 53:1. What a lot of people who quote that don't realize, though, is that not all atheists positively assert that "there is no God." A lot of them simply don't have a particular belief in God because they haven't seen enough evidence to believe in any specific God, but would be willing to accept God's existence if given valid evidence (not just the rhetoric that they often hear).

 

Beyond that, broad-brushing all atheists as fools is once again a form of prejudice. In fact, what really seems foolish is making such a broad-brushed statement.

 

Think about the recent Nativity drama that happened in the borough. A group of nonbelievers simply asked to be able to display a sign honoring atheist and agnostic veterans. What harm would there be in a sign? After all, it is unconstitutional to set up one faith viewpoint over another, and if a Christian themed display is allowed, then displays of other views should be equally allowed, right? Wouldn't accepting one particular display and rejecting an alternate one be showing religious favoritism, which is strictly forbidden in the constitution?

 

Yet, what events unfolded? The borough didn't want to allow any acknowledgement of a particular viewpoint (the nonbelievers), so they had the Nativity scene moved a few feet to church property. It was the only way they could censor the group they opposed.

 

And then there was an outcry by Christians who thought that the nonbelievers group was awful. Awful for what? Just wanting to put a sign up? What's the big deal? Are they so weak in their faith that they can't bear the thought of another view getting recognition?

 

Among the outcries I saw a letter from one Christian who was claiming that Christians had "suffered" because of this incident. Suffered? How? Having a Nativity scene moved a few feet off of government property constitutes "suffering"? Hopefully you can see how ridiculous that is.

 

Incidentally, that very letter accused atheists of being intolerant, but then turned around and said that the borough did the right thing given the circumstances (implying their act of not tolerating the atheist group). That attitude just drips with hypocrisy, does it not?

 

Through this Nativity drama, what is obvious to me is that it was not the atheists who acted foolishly, but rather certain Christians acted foolishly.

 

You close your note by saying, "And I know deep down inside you are no fool." Thanks for that confirmation. Indeed, I don't believe in following foolishness, I believe in being reasonable and rational.

 

Also, regarding the article you sent, I had already read it. Frankly, it's long on assertions and short on evidence. It's the type of surface argumentation that will normally only be convincing to those who already believe what it asserts. A similarly written article supporting Islam would not be the least bit convincing to most non-Muslims.

 

In closing, I will say that I appreciate your concern for me. I will also say, though, that your concern is unfounded. I'm doing fine, thank you.

 

Take care,

 

I hope that wasn't too much to start off with.

[HRDWarrior]

An excellent response in my opinion. You've stood your ground, but done so without diminishing what your father believes, only how he is interpreting things. I think you've achieved a nice balance there - I would only hope to do as well in a similar situation!

[Brakeman]

Well don't leave us hanging... what did he say?

[★ Citsonga ★]

An excellent response in my opinion. You've stood your ground, but done so without diminishing what your father believes, only how he is interpreting things. I think you've achieved a nice balance there - I would only hope to do as well in a similar situation!

 

Thanks.

 

Well don't leave us hanging... what did he say?

 

I just sent the email a couple minutes before posting it here. I haven't gotten a reply, and he may not have even read it yet. If I get a reply, I'll definitely post about it.

[dichotomy]

I agree, a good and balanced response. Do tell if and how he responds!

[oddbird1963]

I too would love to know your f-in-law's response, Citisonga.

 

 

You were well-reasoned, level headed and you did not look down upon him.

 

Your response is a great example to us all.

[Loren]

Citsonga, you're probably already familiar with this couple of verses, but if not, I've found it to be the most useful single tool in facing the particular Christian attitudes you address in your response to your FIL.

 

Note that Paul (The Greatest Christian Who Ever Lived) is making the sins he lists as to be completely comparable in the mind of God. What I find most fun to use is his comparison between homosexuality and slander.

 

Note also that it's straight out of the NT, thereby cutting the throat of that old standby dodge of running for cover in the, "Old Covenant/New Covenant," labyrinth.

From the KJV version, 1st Corinthians 6:

 

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

 

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers (Slanderers.), nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Thanks, Loren. I am familiar with that text, but it hadn't crossed my mind, so thanks for bringing it up.

 

Anyway, I still haven't gotten a reply, but it's possible that my father-in-law may not even check his email until tomorrow.

[Ouroboros]

Citisonga,

 

Great response.

[godlessgrrl]

Very nice response.

 

The shit theists believe about us godless is amazing, really. We're incapable of loving and caring for others? Sheesh.

[Franko47]

That was a very well thought out response, man. It's good that you made it somewhat lengthy as well, since it shows how much you care about this issue. It shows that your a thinker and that you've got a lot of thoughts about all this stuff.

 

Hopefully your father-in-law will show some levity as well, but expect some Bible quotes on the rebound.

[Shyone]

That was a very well thought out response, man. It's good that you made it somewhat lengthy as well, since it shows how much you care about this issue. It shows that your a thinker and that you've got a lot of thoughts about all this stuff.

 

Hopefully your father-in-law will show some levity as well, but expect some Bible quotes on the rebound.

I agree with Frank.

 

I hope it goes well, or at least remains civil, but his worldview is distorted, and you are a "does not compute."

[★ Citsonga ★]

Thanks again for the responses. I haven't heard from him yet, but neither do I know if he's read the email yet.

 

Anyway, though I wasn't expecting such a note from him (since I had never mentioned my doubting or disbelief to him), I can imagine what may have fueled it. I haven't been going to church now for about a year (except for two times when visiting my family that I went just to avoid rippling the waters), and for quite a while before that my attendance was sporadic. I'm sure he's aware of my church avoidance. Also, I've been attending monthly freethinkers meetups since August, which I haven't mentioned to him, but he may have heard about it through my wife. That's most likely what sparked the note he sent.

 

Speaking of freethinkers meetups, I'm actually going to two of them this week. Wednesday is the monthly one I've been attending, but this evening I'm going to a special meetup with a different group, which happens to be the group that requested the sign honoring atheist and agnostic veterans. This meetup wasn't publicized, so as to avoid confrontation in the area with religious zealots. I'm looking forward to meeting the guy who was pushing for the sign, whom many christians demonized, but whom I've heard from freethinkers who know him is actually a very nice guy.

[mwc]

Also, I've been attending monthly freethinkers meetups since August, which I haven't mentioned to him, but he may have heard about it through my wife. That's most likely what sparked the note he sent.

I was going to mention that you do have a wife and they have a nasty way of mentioning things to their families even when they may not realize they're doing it. She may have innocently ratted you out to someone.

 

If this is the case then you're now going to be seen as the "corrupting force" in the family. The "evil atheist" that can't love their daughter and that will take her to hell with you too. This could mean they start whispering in her ear about you. Hopefully it won't go to that extreme.

 

mwc

[FourDogBrewing]

You are a better man than I, I would have laughed and ignored it.

[hereticzero]

I would ask which group of Christians should I join, the ones who actively murder people in Uganda, or the ones who just encourage murder with their prayers and offerings?

[Brakeman]

I would ask which group of Christians should I join, the ones who actively murder people in Uganda, or the ones who just encourage murder with their prayers and offerings?

 

HZ,

 

Your comment got me wondering about a third option, Christians that live like a kids tea party, they know that the tea and the cookies are imaginary, but none want to be the first to step out of character and state the obvious, so they continue to praise the ones that pretend the strongest, making raves about the flavors and finery.

 

Blech..

[NotBlinded]

Great response. I loved it.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Well, it's been over three full days since I sent the email, and so far I haven't gotten any response. I have to suspect that he's read it by now. I wouldn't be all that surprised if he doesn't mention it again, since he's not normally a confrontational type of person. But he may also be praying about it and planning to respond.

 

He really is a great guy, he'd give you the shirt off his back if need be. And I did have a little bit of reservation about sending it, since he had a son die nearly 27 years ago, and I know that his faith gives him hope that he'll see his son again. But I just couldn't let such a mischaracterization go unchallenged.

 

Anyway, I hope it's given him some stuff to think about. At the very least, I hope he realizes that my leaving the faith wasn't whimsical.

 

Thanks again for everyone's support.

[lunaticheathen]

I just have to say....Ann Coulter??? BLECH! BLECH I SAY!!!

I'm sure your FIL is a nice dude, but he's got something missing upstairs if he listens to that cuntasaurus skank about anything seriously.

[necrosmith]

I dig your response. Well done.

 

I fear you may be wasting your time, however.

 

As my new TV hero once said,

 

"If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn't be religious people." -Dr. House

 

It's hard to argue with delusional people.

[OpheliaGinger]

I wouldn't hold my breath for a reply. Usually, once you eviscerate someone's logic, they retreat to heal.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Well, last evening my wife and I went out to dinner with her parents. This was the first time I'd spoken to my father-in-law since sending the email a week and a half ago. The evening was pleasant, and the topic of the note and email never came up.

 

My father-in-law did say that he had something he wanted to give me, though. He didn't say what it was, but I *suspect* that it's probably an apologetics book or some related articles. Of course, I've spent most of my life reading that stuff, so I'm very familiar with it and I have no interest in reading that sort of thing again. Obviously, once you see the major holes in their arguments, you're not going to be swayed again by the apologists.

 

Since we were parked in different areas of the parking lot and my wife forgot that he had said he had something for me, we were able to leave without him giving me whatever it is he wants to give me. I suspect that it will still turn up sometime soon, though. Hopefully I'm wrong in my assumption about what it is, but considering the circumstances, it's hard to think so.

 

We've always had a pretty decent relationship. In fact, I actually prefer my father-in-law over my own father. I just hope that this topic doesn't escalate into something really bad. If he tries repeatedly to change my mind, while he undoubtedly would mean well, it may inevitably result in me responding in a harsher manner than I'd like to. I cannot tolerate someone trying to cram bullshit mythology down my throat, regardless of how well-intentioned that individual may be.

[Shyone]

Well, last evening my wife and I went out to dinner with her parents. This was the first time I'd spoken to my father-in-law since sending the email a week and a half ago. The evening was pleasant, and the topic of the note and email never came up.

 

We've always had a pretty decent relationship. In fact, I actually prefer my father-in-law over my own father. I just hope that this topic doesn't escalate into something really bad. If he tries repeatedly to change my mind, while he undoubtedly would mean well, it may inevitably result in me responding in a harsher manner than I'd like to. I cannot tolerate someone trying to cram bullshit mythology down my throat, regardless of how well-intentioned that individual may be.

I would think your FIL might be concerned that, if your committment to religion is so "easily" lost, then you might not be committed to his daughter, or you might fall "out of love" or hurt her out of disrespect.

 

Also, if he feels that religion is important, and you "lead his daughter astray", then he may be concerned.

 

IOW, it's not just about being correct or incorrect; it's about life, marriage, love, and all that "unrelated" stuff. I'm sure you won't disrespect your FIL, but he may see disrespecting his beliefs as the same thing.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I would think your FIL might be concerned that, if your committment to religion is so "easily" lost, then you might not be committed to his daughter, or you might fall "out of love" or hurt her out of disrespect.

 

Also, if he feels that religion is important, and you "lead his daughter astray", then he may be concerned.

 

IOW, it's not just about being correct or incorrect; it's about life, marriage, love, and all that "unrelated" stuff. I'm sure you won't disrespect your FIL, but he may see disrespecting his beliefs as the same thing.

 

Definitely.

 

Although, as we ex-christians know, our commitment to the faith was not at all "easily" lost. I went through a hell of a time when questioning and coming to grips with it being false. Those who haven't gone through it simply cannot understand it.