Perpetuating The Myth of Religious Intolerance

Denver Archbishop Charles_J._Chaput recently gave a 12 page address to the Canon Law Association of Slovakia titled "Living within the Truth - Religious liberty and Catholic mission in the new order of the world". Basically, Chaput tries to establish the idea that Christians in the US and Europe are victims of intolerance, but I'm still not seeing it. To me it seems like a lengthy whine about not having as much political power and influence as he would like, with his only real argument for why any religious group should be involved in politics at all in the US is that the US (and Europe and presumably anywhere else that's western, proper, predominantly white and Christian) is based on Christan values and indeed owes its very success and ability to flourish to Christianity.

Right. Well, I obviously disagree.

One part of the address specifically caught my attention:

Downplaying the West’s Christian past is sometimes done with the best intentions, from a desire to promote peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society. But more frequently it’s done to marginalize Christians and to neutralize the Church’s public witness.

The Church needs to name and fight this lie. To be a European or an American is to be heir to a profound Christian synthesis of Greek philosophy and art, Roman law, and biblical truth. This synthesis gave rise to the Christian humanism that undergirds all of Western civilization.

On this point, we might remember the German Lutheran scholar and pastor, Dietrich

Bonhoeffer. He wrote these words in the months leading up to his arrest by the Gestapo in 1943: “The unity of the West is not an idea but a historical reality, of which the sole foundation is Christ.”5

Our societies in the West are Christian by birth, and their survival depends on the

endurance of Christian values. Our core principles and political institutions are based, in large measure, on the morality of the Gospel and the Christian vision of man and

government. We are talking here not only about Christian theology or religious ideas. We are talking about the moorings of our societies -- representative government and the separation of powers; freedom of religion and conscience; and most importantly, the dignity of the human person.

This truth about the essential unity of the West has a corollary, as Bonhoeffer also

observed: Take away Christ and you remove the only reliable foundation for our values, institutions and way of life.

That means we cannot dispense with our history out of some superficial concern over

offending our non-Christian neighbors. Notwithstanding the chatter of the “new atheists,” there is no risk that Christianity will ever be forced upon people anywhere in the West. The only “confessional states” in the world today are those ruled by Islamist or atheist dictatorships -- regimes that have rejected the Christian West’s belief in individual rights and the balance of powers.

Just a few comments - though so much more can be said.

Claiming that there is no risk that Christianity will ever be forced on anyone in the West is not only a shockingly naive statement, it's blatantly untrue. The only way this statement might be valid is if you were to reduce what would be considered "forcing Christianity" enough to make any given example of Christianity being forced on people not count.

Even if you disregard the seemingly constant issues that are popping up all over the US with prayer in city council meetings and school board meetings and religious displays on government property - an obviously unconstitutional act that I personally would consider examples of low level government officials trying to force religion onto people in a subtle, non physical way - there are even more blatant examples of Christians forcing Christianity on people to be found. A recent situation that pops to mind is the Christian concert that was put on in Virginia where soldiers had the "choice" of either attending the concert or going back to their bunks and cleaning for hours. I'm curious as to how that might be considered not forcing Christianity on someone? Is it because there was technically a choice involved?

Also, are there really atheist dictators alive and kicking today, forcing godlessness on their people? Where are they? What are they doing in the name of atheism that is so terrible? Why have I not heard of this before from the literally hundreds of theists I've debated in the past few years? I'm not saying they don't exist, but it is suspicious to me that this is the first time I've heard of them and that no specific examples of these dictators were given.

Last, I find it interesting that the author feels comfortable claiming that both regions are based off of Christianity - or rather "profound Christian synthesis of Greek philosophy and art, Roman law, and biblical truth." He seems to be fine with admitting that our society is not a direct product of one influence, but rather a kind of synthesis of three different influences. Again, this seems short sighted to me. Why only go back that far? What about those influences that helped shape Rome and Greece? Seemingly the only reason that those influences are less important is because the time when Greece, Rome, and the rise of Christianity intercept one another is about how far back Chaput had to go in order to make his point, but if we're going to reach back to the ancient romans to establish what our modern societies are founded in, what's to stop anyone from going back even further than that? Can't I equally claim that US and Europe was built on a foundation that began with Hammurbi's code? Or the Code of Ur-Nammu? Citing the point in history where Christian and Roman ideologies began to intertwine as the foundation of western civilization seems more like convenient historical cherry picking in order to perpetuate an agenda than anything.

I don't mean to downplay the influence Christianity has had in western civilization, it obviously has influenced our societies quite a bit. However, at least in countries where there is some kind of provision for church/state separation, that does not in any way stand as justification for allowing religious groups - Catholic or anyone else - to politicize their religion.

It would seem Chaput's main point is that we somehow owe Christianity for a lot of good things, therefore not allowing Christianity to have a position of political influence and power is tantamount to religious intolerance.

I just don't agree with that sentiment at all.

(thanks to Religion Clause for the link)

Once Again, Gay Jesus Stirs Up Trouble

Personally, I like the idea that Jesus was gay. I don't know why, but make no mistake - this is not supposed to be insulting or baiting toward Christians. As a non-Christian, I think of Jesus in the same grand scope as I think of Paul Bunyan or Captain America. I might not think of Jesus as being real, but I do think of him as a kind of superhero and his compassion is a superhuman trait that he has, in the same way Spidey has his Spidey sense and Green Lantern can use his ring to make shit.

So, I kind of like the idea of Jesus and the Apostles being a band of gay Texans. I get that, you know? Well, evidently a trustee of a Michigan community college doesn't share my artistic appreciation regarding the son of the Christian god. :/

Trustee opposes funds for theater over gay Jesus

A Michigan community college trustee says he opposes funding "evil things," citing school support for a theater group that once performed play depicting Jesus and his apostles as gay Texans.

Grand Rapids Community College is working to close a $3.5 million budget deficit.

At a meeting Monday, Trustee Richard Ryskamp objected to $60,000 budgeted for three groups, including $19,000 for the Actors' Theatre.

In 2003, the troupe presented Terrence McNally's play "Corpus Christi."

Ryskamp says the school should consider if groups it funds "are meeting a standard of decency."

President Steven Ender says the college doesn't censor the theater. A trustees vote on the budget is expected in June.

Expression shouldn't have to be decent. Art shouldn't be constrained by one group of people's opinion regarding the tastefulness of the content. If the trustee doesn't like the performance, he or she ought to use their own equally proportioned freedom of speech to speak out against it instead of trying to use their position of authority to force people to curb their own expression.

Also, fucking chill out on the homosexual hatred. We get it, you don't approve. Obviously you're obsessive about this shit, you're throwing a fit about a play that was put on seven years ago. Now stop throwing a fit because fewer and fewer people care what you think. You can't force society to stagnate just because you refuse to evolve.

Maintaining Perspective As A Vocal Atheist

I ran across what I felt was a really interesting article about something I have never really thought about - clergy who don't believe.

The article referenced a report written by Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola of Tufts University, and thankfully provided a link. I thought this study was really interesting and I encourage every atheist out there who has little personal experience with religion to read it, to get a better idea of the reality of religiosity for a lot of people.

Here's an excerpt:

How on earth did we recruit them? By spreading the word discreetly. Eighteen people were contacted to participate between September 2008 and April 2009. Initial recruiting attempts were made via personal contacts (e.g., clergy and seminary acquaintances, non-believing clergy who had retired or left the profession). When approached, potential respondents were told that the intent was to “learn more about the issues that clergy face when their beliefs are not in synch with church teachings.” Dennett mentioned the study at conferences he attended. Ultimately, the five participants came from two sources: two from a list of clergy who had originally contacted the Center for Progressive Christianity (TCPC) for general information, and three from people who had personally contacted Dan Barker, co-director of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Barker is a former minister and author of two books about losing his religious beliefs. Jim Adams, a retired Episcopal priest, author and the founder of TCPC, provided a list of 28 names. Of those, nine were contacted and two of the nine participated in the study. Four people contacted Dan Barker directly. Of those, two agreed to participate. One contact who was a former clergyman, and therefore not eligible to participate, referred a colleague who then agreed to participate. Three women who expressed interest were not asked to participate: one because she was no longer in a pastoral role and two because their denominations were already represented in the study. Four men declined to participate: two did not follow up after showing initial interest; two others cited concerns about the term “non-believing.” Though neither of them believed in a supernatural god, both strongly self-identified as believers.

But what do they mean by this? Are they perhaps deceiving themselves? There is no way of answering, and this is no accident. The ambiguity about who is a believer and who a nonbeliever follows inexorably from the pluralism that has been assiduously fostered by many religious leaders for a century and more: God is many different things to different people, and since we can’t know if one of these conceptions is the right one, we should honor them all. This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believed in God, many people could sincerely say that they don’t know what they are being asked.

This is not just agnosticism, the belief that one does not (or cannot) know whether God exists, but something prior: the belief that one cannot even know which question—if any--is being asked. Many people are utterly comfortable with this curious ignorance; it just doesn’t matter to them what the formulas mean that their churches encourage them to recite. Some churches are equally tolerant of the indeterminacy: as long as you “have faith” or are “one with Jesus” (whatever you think that means) your metaphysical convictions are your own business. But pastors can’t afford that luxury. Their role in life often requires them to articulate, from the pulpit and elsewhere, assertions about these very issues.

I find all five of the stories presented fascinating, and their responses to candid questions about hypocrisy and how they feel amongst their congregations knowing that they don't actually believe in the god they're speaking on behalf of seem honest and understandable, at least to me.

I think it's easy to take a hard nosed approach to theism in all forms when you're an atheist, and I don't think that's necessarily bad, I just feel like I personally at least need to take a step back once in a while and remember that these people I sometimes feel are my opposite, theists, are the same as me except we disagree on an idea. That's all. The degree to which we disagree and the areas that disagreement bleeds into are complicated and are not something that should be regarded as necessarily petty or unimportant by any means, but I think a regular adjustment of perspective is healthy for anyone who feels compelled to take a definite position in such a polarized and often emotional topic of debate.

Theist Vandals Take Sophomoric Aggression Out On Sign

From this site - quite the petty, insecure reaction to a good deed.

From The Back Pew:
‘Atheists’ sign under siege
By Michael J. Arvizu

Across from me is Roberta Medford. We’re sitting in front of an open window at her Montrose residence.

“What is it about atheists that people just don’t like?” I ask.

“You would have to ask them that. I don’t know!” Medford says with a good-natured laugh.

I visited Medford on Monday evening to get her take on another vandalization of the Adopt-A-Highway Atheists United sign on the Glendale (2) Freeway. This time, the sign on the southbound side had been defaced. The “A” in “Atheists” had been covered in white paint, making it read “THEISTS UNITED.”

“I find it incredibly intolerant, and . . . maybe they should get a life,” Medford said of the vandal, or vandals, responsible.

I’ve driven past that sign many times. Of all the Adopt-A-Highway signs I pass in Los Angeles, that is the only one I pay attention to. That sign has been egged, tagged, and at one point someone took a saw to it, knocking it to the ground.

But it is always restored. The sign recognizes Atheists United for its work picking up trash along the freeway. It is one of many such signs along L.A.’s freeways that usually represent an organization located within a particular route. For example, Warner Bros. in Burbank has a sign posted along the 134 Freeway.

People don’t seem to mind Warner Bros., but atheists are another matter.

Atheism, broken down, means no theology. Atheists simply believe there is no God, or no evidence to support the existence of God. Furthermore, atheists also advocate strongly for the separation of church and state, as defined in the 1st Amendment.

“I looked at the world and realized [that] I don’t see a god there,” said Medford, who became an atheist at 14. “It’s an idea, a human invention. You have to admit, god is a human invention, it’s not a physical object or presence.”

It’s not a bad invention, she says; she just doesn’t share in the belief.

So why do atheists get such a bad rap?

I posed the question to atheists Sharon and Bill Weisman of Glendale. The couple are well-known in the community and involved in a variety of local projects. I hoped they might be able to shed some light on my question, but that wasn’t the case.

“We’re puzzled. We don’t understand the motive,” Sharon Weisman said. “For some reason, religious people don’t have a problem disrespecting atheists.”

Bill Weisman calls it an irony that someone would destroy something their very tax dollars are paying for.

“It’s motivated by hatred, motivated by anger,” he said. Bill also finds it ironic that such an act might be committed by a person whose religion is based on tolerance, acceptance and love.

Maybe the people involved feel that atheism is offensive to them because it goes against the very notion of their belief system — the existence of God, or some other deity. Atheism says no, there is no god, so the vandals, perhaps, say, “How dare you make such a statement. For that, I’m going to vandalize your sign tonight!”

Why is not believing there is a god any less valid than believing in God?

Following up on Medford’s suggestion, I ask those responsible for vandalizing the sign: Tell me, what is it about atheists that you dislike so much? Come forward; explain yourself. Tell me your side of the story.

Was an atheist unkind to you once? Or are you doing this simply because you think it’s funny?

No Tolerance For Theocracies

I was raised to regard people different from myself with a pretty healthy dose of tolerance. There are a lot of things that other people do, a lot of beliefs that other people have, a lot of traditions that other people take part in that I think are stupid, pointless, and/or even disturbing to a degree. I don't have to like anything...but tolerance is important. Why? Because I'd like the same treatment.

Golden rule and all that.

Tolerance of another culture is just as important as tolerance of an individual in my opinion. Yeah, I really dislike the music my neighbors play during the day and I also think it's kind of weird that they see no issues with buying food from one another off of homemade hand pulled carts. It's weird to me because it isn't me. I'm not going to go out and start buying food off their cart or jamming out to their tunes, but I have no issues tolerating their culture because they tolerate mine. Tolerance, not necessarily acceptance, is key in any modern society where cultures mix so frequently.

However, I believe there is a point where tolerance of behavior is unacceptable. If a culture, for example, had a tradition where they took their youngest child and beat him or her publicly on a certain day of the year, I don't think I would be wrong to report that person to the police, even though they are engaging in a cultural tradition. Even if the culture that engaged in child beating kept the tradition within their own country, I don't think it would be intolerant to speak out against that kind of behavior. Even if some of the kids who were beaten insisted that they were completely happy with the arrangement, I would still speak out against it and I don't think that I could rationally be considered intolerant.

That's why I don't think it's intolerant to say that the more I hear about the Islamic laws and how they're being enforced in places like Iran, the more I feel like that country is fucking crazy pants.

I bring this up because Iran, the country who brought you 'female immodesty causes extramarital sex which causes earthquakes', has said that women who suntan will now be arrested in order to maintain the Islamic dress code.

Juuust let that sink in a minute.

Yeah, my head kind of exploded too. Now, from the article:

Brig Hossien Sajedinia, Tehran's police chief, said a national crackdown on opposition sympathisers would be extended to women who have been deemed to be violating the spirit of Islamic laws. He said: "The public expects us to act firmly and swiftly if we see any social misbehaviour by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values. In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins.

"We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."

Iran's Islamic leadership has in recent weeks launched a scaremongering campaign to persuade the population that vice is sweeping the streets of the capital. National law stipulates that women wear headscarves and shape shrouding cloaks but many women, particularly in the capital, spend heavily on fashions that barely adhere to the regulations.

I don't think it's intolerant to say that this is wrong. The subjugation of women is wrong, whether it's religiously motivated or not. For those Americans who continue to claim that our country is somehow a Christian nation - take a good look at what a theocracy looks like. Tits cause earthquakes and suntans are illegal. Is this really the example you want America to follow?