Irreligious is neither atheist nor agnostic

Somehow it is generally assumed that one must be atheistic or agnostic if not
religious. That's what I heard when I was an adolescent. First I was a
conservative Jew (as everyone said I should be). I was eating kosher and
attending synagogue on Shabbas. Then I became agnostic, in the sense that I
needed some evidence to contain sufficient faith to be a "true believer."
This is not a rare view, BTW, for surviving generations of the WWII. In
being honest with myself, and with others, I can say I have not been agnostic
since college. But I am not atheist.

I am irreligious, and even though I have stated it squarely, no one on this
list has accepted that. It brings back to me confusion and challenge when I
stated that for me all music is microtonal. People were arguing definitions
all the time and disregarding a genuine view shared by many today.

Similarly, "irreligious" is in the dictionary and an old, time-tested
American view and position. Please look it up! The term was used during the
American revolution. So said Chan Parker of her husband Charlie Parker in a
broadcast interview. When I was younger, campers in my charge would proclaim
that "music" was my religion. Some musicians have said that of Bird as well.

Whereas atheism is against theism (as atonality is to tonality, with perhaps
similar results), I am not against theism. I grew up following the flower
children of Greenwich Village, to love everybody. Hair, the show, was a
mantra. Louis Armstrong was my favorite (and did vocal imitations of him in
stand up comedy). I love people, and am quite aware of my spiritual side.
Theism may be biological as suggested by Julian Jaynes in "The Origin of
Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." Only, it skips
certain children.

Agnostic, quite different than its first meaning in its ancient Egyptian
sense, is simply a way-station. People can wait a lifetime, or they may need
to push on. Now for those of you that speak to a sentient being on a daily
basis, and I know many of you, please don't let me interrupt your private
communications. Know only that I have my own communications, only they are
not religious.

Peace, Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Somehow it is generally assumed that one must be atheistic or
> agnostic if not religious. <snip>

I think you are right there.

> I am irreligious, and even though I have stated it squarely, no one
> on this list has accepted that.

Well, I for one never denied it. If you so state, I will accept it.

> It brings back to me confusion and challenge when I
> stated that for me all music is microtonal. People were arguing
> definitions all the time and disregarding a genuine view shared by
> many today.

For me it depends on definitions. Microtonal has no meaning if it
applies to all music, unless it means something like "free to play
pitches other than those in 12tet, and free to play those too".
Something like that (but better stated) seems reasonable to me. I
think I know what you mean though. If I had to come up with a
description of the music I have heard from you, I would probably call
it pantonal.

> Similarly, "irreligious" is in the dictionary and an old,
> time-tested American view and position. Please look it up! The term
> was used during the American revolution. So said Chan Parker of her
> husband Charlie Parker in a broadcast interview.

Good for him. It was much more difficult to hold your own against the
forces of religion in those days and before. One of the great things
we have in this country is freedom of and from religion.
<snip>

> Now for those of you that speak to a sentient being on
> a daily basis, and I know many of you, please don't let me interrupt
> your private communications. Know only that I have my own
> communications, only they are not religious.
>
> Peace, Johnny Reinhard
<snip>

Johnny,

--- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Somehow it is generally assumed that one must be atheistic or
> agnostic if not religious.

It would seem a common assumption.

> I am irreligious, and even though I have stated it squarely, no one
> on this list has accepted that.

I'm not sure why you would think this, and it may be just a problem
of semantics. I certainly believe you on this.

> Similarly, "irreligious" is in the dictionary and an old, time-
> tested American view and position. Please look it up!

The secondary definition in my copy of Webster's states: "indifferent
or hostile to religion", and you certainly don't come across as being
hostile to religion. Maybe this points up the difficulties of our
shared language(s), and how even the most well-meaning of people
might have been slightly confused on your stance. We all need to be
as clear as possible, and understanding of other's (temporary)
misunderstandings as well.

Bottom line: I think I have a pretty clear idea of your concept of
irreligious, and it makes good sense to me.

Regards,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> I am irreligious, and even though I have stated it squarely, no one
on this
> list has accepted that.

Do each of us need to explicitly state that we accept that before you
will be convinced that we accept it? OK . . .

Dear Johnny,

I accept that you are irreligious.

-Paul

(very confused)

In a message dated 10/2/01 5:04:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
paul@... writes:

> --- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > I am irreligious, and even though I have stated it squarely, no one
> on this
> > list has accepted that.
>
> Do each of us need to explicitly state that we accept that before you
> will be convinced that we accept it? OK . . .
>
> Dear Johnny,
>
> I accept that you are irreligious.
>
> -Paul
>
> (very confused)
>
>
>

Are you joking? Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/2/01 5:04:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> paul@s... writes:
>
>
> > --- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > > I am irreligious, and even though I have stated it squarely, no
one
> > on this
> > > list has accepted that.
> >
> > Do each of us need to explicitly state that we accept that before
you
> > will be convinced that we accept it? OK . . .
> >
> > Dear Johnny,
> >
> > I accept that you are irreligious.
> >
> > -Paul
> >
> > (very confused)
> >
> >
> >
>
> Are you joking? Johnny
>
No, I'm seriously very confused.