Dana, thanks for posting Stendahl’s rules. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen them before, but I’ve seen them lived. That’s how I was raised, and how I try to act myself. Hopefully, others who post here will follow them.

It’s very difficult to follow these rules with someone who doesn’t appear to be interested in following them on their side of the fence.

I’ll try again: Thanks for posting these rules. I don’t think I’ve ever seen them, at least in this form. I was raised to live them, and have tried to live by them.

It’s really hard to do when the person you’re talking to doesn’t want to abide by them. Good luck.

Stendahl’s rules are actually pretty good, but I would add a fourth:

4. Listen to the voice of the minority. All voices have the right to be heard.

As usual, those of us who are affected daily by religion in America, but do not share it, are excluded. Thus, the believers are invited to simply shut out our questions and they all may happily reinforce one another without any questions about their fundamentals. Nor must they ever explain the tenets of their respective faiths or ideologies in the context of non-belief in those fundamentals.

I’m disappointed in the Post. When Townsend says, “… we recruited a dozen members of our community - from across the spectrum of faiths, ideologies, ages and races…” you weren’t exactly honest or accurate, were you? Where is the “ideology” of the atheist, or even of the agnostic?

But, of course, the answer is that we don’t actually “count”, do we? Thus we may be safely pushed out of the discussion. Of course, when that happens, one is safe in suggesting that the blog isn’t really about dialog; it’s really about propaganda.

V. V. : I don’t know that much about the Ethical Society, but they appear to me to be a long way from traditionally religious, and probably Agnostic if pressed. I’ll be interested in learning a little about them.

To Voter Veritas -

Yes I believe ‘hs’ is correct about the Ethical Society.

Voter Veritas, you as an athiest or agnostic ARE equally included in this Civil Religion blog; and that is evidenced by a writer from the Ethical Society being one of the principal bloggers. It may seem a bit odd, but for over a hundred years right here in St. Louis, the Ethical Society has been an organized church for nonbelievers. I am not a member of the Ethical Society, but based upon my acquaintance, I belive what I have said is correct.

And it is a good thing that the nonbeliever is equally included in this Post-Dispatch blog. Here is how I see the general topic of religion: Simply as human beings, each one of us knows only what we know; and each one of us is up against the unknown. And by the unknown I mean not only that which is unfamiliar to me, but someone down the street does know; but especially the unknown that no living person knows through his or her five senses.

There is a great deal of science, technology, business, art, music that I have no expertise in or have even vague acquaintance with, but plenty of other people do. That’s okay; that is the usual state of affairs for all of us. The world is very big and interesting, but I only grasp some of it.

But where did the world come from? Where am I going? What happens when I die? These are the type of questions that religion is more expert in dealing with; or at least, these unknowns are the territory that religion focuses on. Without these questions and attempts to answer them, organized religion is just another business with an income statement and balance sheet; payroll, buildings, programs and so on.

In my opinion, the athiest or agnostic is vital to the community. Without them, believers may too easily nod their heads at one another and fail to come to grips with the unknown.

Best wishes,
Dan Jones

There are only twelve bloggers so far, and while we represent a wide spectrum, we don’t represent all the views of our community. It may be impossible to have perfect representation. That is why comments are vital and add so much to this dialogue.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Dana

I wouldn’t argue that civil dialogue is made easier when everyone plays by the “rules of the road”. However, the beauty of Stendahl’s rules is that my adhering to them is not contingent on what others do. These are rules to guide me, to help me understand. If I choose not to seek for understanding, I lose out.

Dana

Thank you for acknowledging my frustration and for your thoughtful comments, hs, Dan and Dana. guess I can only wait and see what happens. It will remain to be seen whether the voices of the atheist and the agnostic will be heard in this community forum. As an atheist, I will confess, that this voice is rarely heard except when we “pound the table” and, when heard, can sometimes be derided or dismissed with impunity. Thanks again.

Wonderful rules Dana! Thank you. May we all do our best to adhere to them.

Voter Veritas, I hope you will check out my first blog entry on “Religious Humanism” and share your story. The Ethical Society is “non-theistic,” meaning that as a body we neither affirm nor deny the existence of God or gods or an afterlife. Like Buddha, who reponded to questions about the afterlife by saying, essentially, ‘We have more than enough business in this life to attend to,’ we focus on ethical living (which is a large part of all religions). We have many atheist and agnostic members, and in this blog forum I will do my best to speak for them–without pounding the table! I have found the interfaith community in St. Louis to be very respectful of the Ethical Society, its values and its good works, even when they don’t quite understand us. That’s open-mindedness