Tag Archives: godless

Book Review: Grace without God by Katherine Ozment

Grace without God is one woman’s search for meaning, belonging, and purpose without religion. The author, Katherine Ozment, interviews expert after expert in an attempt to answer some of life’s big questions. The reader follows her along to these interviews as a proverbial fly on the wall.

About halfway in, I struggled to finish reading, for Grace without GodI became increasingly frustrated by the rose-colored religious glasses through which the book is written. Although dozens of experts were interviewed, there was no examination of the underbelly of religion, no balanced analysis of *why* religion and belief can also be a problem. Sure, in modern America, religion can offer a warm, fuzzy place to hang your hat. But there is no mention of the harm that religion has also brought into the world, of the terrible damage and fear it brings daily. There’s no mention of the shame many believers feel nor of the exclusion and loneliness people feel who are different, even though they sit in the pews week after week.

The premise for Grace without God is that living without religion makes us no more than driftwood afloat in an indifferent world. (Which is true regardless of what you believe.) “Could my family and I find valid alternatives to all the good that religion gives?” Ozment asks. The entire book is a long yearning for “…a religious moral grounding, timeworn rituals, and a community… “ Even in the last two pages of the book, the author writes, “Occasionally, I take myself to church…..Beneath the cavernous vaulted ceiling, only the sound of our voices lifting up, I feel at once infinitesimal and valuable beyond measure.”

For Ozment, living without religion is a problem. For me, living without religion is a solution.

Perhaps the most frustrating sentiment was expressed here: “The truth is that belief in a supernatural god or gods works exceedingly well when it comes to cultivating morals within a group. We act better when we feel we are being watched, as by a God.” All I could think was: suicide bombers, Catholic priests, hate crimes, a truck in Nice, France. These folks all thought god was watching them.

There is no mention that the morality created by religion is a superficial, selfish structure, one in which believers do “good” only because someone is watching and only because they are promised with the reward of heaven or the punishment of hell. In some religions, believers don’t even “do good;” they “do bad” over and over and just ask for god’s forgiveness. Or, worse, they “do bad” under their god’s supposed direction. What kind of morality is that? Western religion tells us that we are born sinful as the offspring of parents who disobeyed God. So much for a loving, forgiving God. It also tells us that all we have to do is ask for God’s forgiveness when we’ve had impure thoughts or committed crimes, no matter how many times. All these points are overlooked in the book, with the idea being that the loss of a religious community is unnatural and problematic. Yet from where I’m standing, it is not unnatural and problematic to take religion and belief out of our lives, it is unnatural and problematic to force them in.

Having said all this, we all realize this is just one person’s opinion (mine). Maybe I don’t “get” this book. Maybe I have no love left for the institution of religion. There are folks out there who might really enjoy, Grace without God. There are folks who might love it. The prose is well-written, and it could be a good read for someone on the fence about whether to leave religion or not, someone who is not quite sure what they believe or if they have the fortitude to go it alone. However, it might also help some of those believers remain in their religion.

*This review was not paid, although I did receive a free copy of the book in exchange for giving my feedback. I am a full-time employee of a technology company and do not work in the publishing industry.

GUEST POST: Public displays of religion: Why history tells us ‘It’s just a phase.’

I am delighted to have a guest post by a reader on the east coast. Robert Partridge has an interesting perspective on religion and politics. I hope his unique insights spark an interesting discussion! Thanks for sharing, Rob!

____________________________________________________

Public displays of religion: Why history tells us ‘It’s just a phase.’
By Robert Partridge – guest blogger (robpartridge@msn.com) May 8, 2014

In the re-energized debate regarding religion’s appropriate public role, as well as the Separation of Church and State, one need not be a religious or historical scholar to recognize what is going on but, to borrow from the old quip, “It helps.”

To begin this review it is important to note that at no time in the history of these United States did such lofty issues enjoy a consensus among the population – not even before the nation was formally established. Research which barely scratches the surface will reveal sources describing the Founders’ motivations as being driven by Colonial nationalism and financial self-interest, as often as suggesting they were driven by religious spirit or a belief in Divine intervention. An abundance of evidence exists indicating that those who left Europe to escape religious persecution – especially the Quakers – placed a high priority on the importance of not persecuting others, and not forcing their religious beliefs on the rest of society. Except for the French in Quebec and the Spanish in Florida, an institution as far-reaching as the Catholic Church did not have significant impact on the development of attitudes and laws in the United States until the major migrations to the U.S. of Germans, Irish, Italians and Poles took place from the mid-1800s through the early 1900s.

Would you agree that concepts such as “In God We Trust” on coinage or “One Nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are as enduring as the nation itself? Spoiler alert: that would be an improper assertion.

“In God We Trust” first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864 and the relevance of that date is critical. The Civil War was about to enter its fourth year, seemingly with no end in sight, and the desperate hope that God would favor one side over the other was an increasingly prevalent position of both the Union and the Confederacy. As for the Pledge of Allegiance, it was in 1954 with the global Communist threat at its height that President Dwight Eisenhower directed Congress to explore adding the words “under God,” modifying the existing pledge into the form that is recited today.

Have you spotted a trend? In each case, as an appeal to the Christian Supreme Being was made, threats to the existence of the nation were actually in play or perceived as quite real. The same is revealed in examples of the Founders drawing on the support of Providence in their quest to attain independence. Dr. Benjamin Franklin, not a particularly religious individual himself, nonetheless underscored the tensions and potential consequences of the time in his famous statement following the adoption of the Declaration of Independence: “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Such life or death moments have tended to push societies toward their closest orbits with religion.

And so we have come full circle to the topic at hand. Why is the highly-visible reemergence of religion in public life being promoted by lawmakers, judges, political pundits and even some journalists, many of whom proclaim a fear for the very survival of our country at this particular moment? Let there be little uncertainty about the catalysts. The same perceptions of vulnerability and risk to our nation that were present during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Cold War of the 1950s and 60s are once again taking hold.

Recent historical events such as the Iranian Revolution of 1977 and hostage-taking at the Tehran U.S. Embassy in 1979, bombings at the hands of Islamic radicals of U.S. troop barracks in Lebanon in 1983 and Saudi Arabia in 1996, and the Gulf War of 1991 in reaction to Saddam Hussein’s assault on Kuwait all helped disturb the American sense of balance in the world. The 9/11 attacks, followed by the invasion to rid Afghanistan of al Qaida and the Taliban (and the Weapons of Mass Destruction debacle that led to the second Iraq War in 2003) dramatically added to that sense of imbalance and furthered the ongoing military-religious conflict which underlies the real cause of our nation’s actions; Fear.

That is not fear defined in the cowardly sense. It is the fear generated in Thomas Hobbes’ State of Nature, when one entity senses it is cornered and left with no options. The human reaction to that fear is and has been predictable since the times of the ancient Greeks and Romans: a preparation for and engagement in conflict, hand-in-hand with petitions to God (or to ‘the gods’, as was the case 2,500 years ago.)

Please do not compose angry letters accusing me of questioning the depth or sincerity of anyone’s faith. That is not at issue here and my intent is to insult no one. This piece serves merely to provide the historical perspective as to why societies and governments will always respond to collective anxiety by attempting to amplify public religious practices and symbolism.

So, for those who identify themselves as non-believers, do not wonder or worry about our neighbors’ increasingly aggressive and noisy position on public displays of religion. It’s mostly just fear at work – once again.