“There
is a war going on for your mind;” a war being fought on battlefields and on
billboards, in universities and Sunday schools, in blogs and boardrooms,
capitol buildings and city parks. From Wall Street to Main Street, from Kabul
to Kansas City, the combined facts of seven thousand years of civilization and
seven billion human beings struggling to eat, breathe, live and believe are all
coming to a head. It has many names and many forms, running the gamut from
Terror to Women to Drugs to Christmas—all inextricably linked by the immense
power of ideas and the belief systems that propagate them.
In
the United States, as we move unsteadily into the second decade of the new
millennium, there are two reigning champions vying for supremacy over the
American soul. These sometimes united, sometimes conflicting ideologies are
called Christianity and Consumerism—the Pillars of Hercules for the modern
age—shakily supporting the fading glory of the last of the global superpowers.
As the inevitable signs of old age and decay begin taking their toll more
prominently with each passing day, the reactionary forces redouble their
efforts to maintain the status quo, embracing the mentality that the best
defense is a good offense.
For
Consumerism, this takes the form of increasing corporate influence over the
political system and daily life, along with ever-more-violent crackdowns
against the Occupy protestors and others who stand against total corporate
domination. It claims as its victims both the planet’s environment and the
civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution, all in the name of “security”
and “prosperity.” For Christianity, it takes the form of the Culture Wars,
equally trampling upon the Bill of Rights in pursuit of the ultimate objective
of its proponents—to turn back the clock and return to that golden age of
enforced Jesus worshiping known to history as the Dark Ages.
The
first few months of 2012 have born witness to an all-out assault by the
Religious Right on all secular notions of what it means to be free. In Tennessee,
bills have been passed requiring the teaching of Creationism in science
classes, encouraging displays of the Ten Commandments in schools, courthouses,
and other public buildings, and promoting the involvement of teachers and
administrators in after-hours religious activities on school grounds. In Kansas,
a sweeping anti-abortion bill—on top of severely limiting access for women to
basic contraception—includes a provision to protect doctors who deliberately
withhold vital information from mothers about the health of their fetuses. In North
Carolina, voters have struck down the legality of gay marriage and in Mississippi;
a prominent lawmaker has gone even further by apologetically calling for gay
men to be put to death based solely on a single line from the poisonous rant
known as Leviticus. Barring an immediate and diametric change in direction,
these and countless other recent examples are likely but a preview of what’s in
store for the nation in the years ahead.
The
underlying theme here should be obvious. These aren’t merely cases of opposing
politics or differing ideas on how best to lead society forward to a brighter
future. They’re not about money or safety or accountability or equality. They’re not about taxing and spending, or
social vs. individual rights, or any of the other issues that frame the usual
progressive/conservative divide. No,
every single one of these issues is being driven by an explicit and
uncompromising religious agenda. They’re all facets of a larger effort to
repeat Joshua’s mythical feat at Jericho with the hopes of flattening once and
for all, the wall of separation between church and state.
Latching
onto the ancient fables of superstitious nomads from the deserts of the Near
East, zealous politicians and the devout citizens they represent are lashing
out at what they see as the corrosion of traditional Christian values. Under
threat by scientific discoveries and an evolving sense of what constitutes
morality in a multicultural society, they seek the comfort of “old time
religion” along with the worst of Old Testament tribalism and the bloody
vengeance against “the Other” that comes with it.
Faced
with this rising tide of ignorance, misogyny, and theocratic yearnings, those
who value the Enlightenment principles of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness” struggle with how best to respond; how best to mount an effective
defense against it. Ironically, much of this difficulty is self-imposed, for
most of the efforts to counteract this deluge of fanaticism remain severely
hampered by a basic unwillingness to call the enemy by its true name. Even more ironic is that the only group who
seems unafraid to point out the real problem—the ones most ready, able, and eager
to attack it at its root—also bear the unwelcome distinction of being America’s
most reviled minority, universally despised more than foreigners, gays, and
Muslims combined—the atheists.
That
word alone is enough to send many Christians clutching for a crucifix or
scurrying for the mental shelter of their nearest Bible. For engaging in the
simple but unpardonable offense of living life without a belief in God (and
daring to mention it out loud) we are made outcasts from our own society. In
trying only to achieve a free and open civilization based on facts and on
reason, as reward for our efforts we are attacked by those on both the left and
the right and smeared with the label “intolerant” or told that sharing our
ideas amounts to nothing more than “proselytizing.”
This
reaction is to be expected, as surely as the sun will rise again tomorrow, for
its deeply ingrained in human nature to fear the unfamiliar and abhor the
unknown. The question is whether it’s fair, whether it’s reasonable, and
whether it’s a useful response to the pressing problems facing modern humans.
With that in mind, let’s then examine these charges for possible merit or
validity, beginning with intolerance.
Part
of this dismissive name-calling stems from what seems to be a widespread
confusion over the difference between the concepts of “tolerance” and
“acceptance.” The dictionary defines tolerance as, “a fair, objective, and
permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own;
interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s
own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.”
The key words here are fair, objective, and undogmatic.
Atheist
opposition to religion doesn’t stem from some deep-seated bias or unconsidered
opinion. It’s not derived from some ancient
book immune to rational criticism. Modern atheism is built upon critical
thinking and knowledge of objective scientific facts about the workings of the
universe coupled with an unblinking awareness of the countless, clearly
documented instances—both in the news and throughout history—in which religious
believers have repeatedly sought to impose their own narrow ideology in ways
that restrict other people’s rights and limit their freedoms.
Atheists
are not ignorant of the religious viewpoint; far from it. Many are actually
former theists (“apostates,” as they’re referred to by the faithful) who have
experienced the process of indoctrination firsthand. As for the remainder –
those of us lucky enough to be born into an environment of free inquiry—if you scratch
beneath the surface of the derogatory stereotypes, you’ll find we are often
extremely knowledgeable about religious creeds and practices as we have usually
studied them extensively in order to consolidate and refine our arguments
against them. In fact, many atheists
find religion fascinating for the very reason that it is so foreign and
different from their own way of seeing the world. It would seem quite clear
then that whatever else atheists may be (if such a broad generalization is even
meaningful or fair to make), intolerant is not the right word.
Acceptance,
on the other hand, is a far different beast. Acceptance
means, “favorable reception, approval, favor; the act of assenting or
believing.” If that’s the criteria by
which we’re being judged then fine, call us “unaccepting.” Atheists (by
definition) certainly do not assent to or believe in religious ideas nor do we
approve of many religious actions and behaviors. And why should we? Why should
we accept something that all of the available evidence indicates is false and
for which example after example readily show as causing much more harm than
good?
The
idea that putting forth honest criticism is somehow a form of intolerance is
not only patently absurd but also provides an excuse for every human rights
abuse, every form of tyranny and oppression, every lie and betrayal and misdeed
ever conceived of or carried out in the history of humankind. Do we as a
society “tolerate” murderers? Do we “tolerate” rapists and child molesters? Do
we tolerate wife beaters or drunk drivers or bank robbers (as we might an
incessantly barking dog)? No, we most certainly do not, because we have decided
as civilized human beings that certain behaviors simply cannot be tolerated.
Certain actions are so harmful and disruptive to peaceful coexistence that we
will not stand for them.
It’s
the true believers who are truly intolerant. It is they who condemn all who
fail to share their religious opinions to suffer eternity undergoing
unspeakable torment, and when their threats of divine punishment ring hollow,
they all too often take matters into their own hands. As for everyone else, by
not just tolerating but instead actively honoring and respecting the theists’
fantastical worldview, it serves only to give them free reign to continue to
oppress generation after generation of innocent young minds, dragging along all
of society as their unwitting accomplices.
Former-Muslim-turned-freethought
activist, Ayaan
Hirsi Ali puts it clearly in perspective with the statement, “Tolerance of
intolerance is cowardice.” Or in the words of the philosopher of science, Karl
Popper:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant … then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them … We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
When
you think about it, this charge of intolerance against atheists is itself a
form of intolerance, for if atheists are not allowed to expressly dispute the
claims made by religion—if we are required to just sit there politely with our
mouths shut while twiddling our thumbs—then essentially we are not allowed to
exist. As it turns out, this existential threat is much more than just a
hypothetical concern.
After
the controversy that erupted over the publishing of the Mohammed
cartoons in Denmark a few years ago, Muslims all over Europe were clamoring
for new laws to make it illegal to criticize or otherwise offend religion. This would in essence, criminalize disbelief.
Since that time, imams, lay believers, and fanatics alike haven’t let up in
calling for an end to free expression, and the shield they cower behind while
promoting their favored brand of censorship is that of “religious tolerance.”
Thankfully, thus far, the liberal democracies of the world have continued to
value freedom of speech above almost any other right and so for the moment,
these “blasphemy” measures being pushed in the UN have yet to gain any real
traction. How much longer this will last remains uncertain.
It
is nothing more than this fundamental freedom of speech that atheists exercise
in speaking out. Does this amount to proselytizing? Are atheists just
missionaries of a different stripe? It hardly seems a valid comparison. How often has an atheist come knocking at
your door on a Saturday morning bearing pamphlets and dire prophecies? How many
times have you opened the drawer of a hotel nightstand and found a book by
Richard Dawkins? Frankly, if we could just be left alone, unencumbered by the
trappings of regressive medieval thought imposing itself over our laws and our
politics, it would be the last anyone would hear from us (on the issue of
religion).
To
proselytize
means “to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte” and a proselyte is “a
person who has changed from one opinion, religious belief, sect, or the like,
to another.” So unless you wish to denigrate believers and unbelievers alike by
considering atheism a religion (which is like calling baldness a hair color or
abstinence a sex position) then the term doesn’t really seem applicable.
Atheists simply present our ideas; we don’t force anyone to listen or threaten
terrible consequences if they don’t believe us. This is a crucial distinction.
As the philosopher John Stuart Mill—perhaps the most passionate advocate of
liberty ever to put pen to paper—phrased it:
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise… Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
This
is what both Christians and infamous godless dictators like Stalin and Mao have
repeatedly and continually failed to grasp.
You can’t force people at gunpoint to accept your ideas or your
opinions—and threatening eternal damnation is the exact moral equivalent. All
you can do is try to persuade using evidence and rational arguments to support
your points. Failing that, there’s always the less respectable fallback of
appealing to emotion (the preferred tactic of preachers, politicians, and
advertisers) but actual or implied violence is categorically unacceptable.
Anyway, what’s so fundamentally wrong with sharing ideas so long as it’s done
without coercion? Isn’t that precisely
what every scientist, philosopher, journalist, or teacher does? Aren’t they equally accountable to this
charge of proselytizing?
Now,
I fully realize that for many people, the thought of criticizing someone else’s
most cherished beliefs is severely distasteful, and that’s fine. As Yann
Martel, author of Life of Pi remarked, “I am careful to never talk about
religion. Who am I to kick other people’s crutches?” What he fails to mention
however, is that such polite non-interference makes no sense when people are
using those crutches, not as supports, but as clubs with which to bash everyone
else over the head.
This
is precisely why atheists are becoming increasingly vocal. It’s not some
deep-seated misanthropy or general desire to offend or provoke. It’s not a
product of immaturity or confusion or a lack of knowledge. We are every bit as passionate and committed
as any oppressed
minority, and being the last group in America who even
presidents feel they can freely disparage without a twinge of conscience
makes us all the more committed to keep fighting for positive change.
I’ve
seem commenters claim that they’re “sick of” this constant back and forth
between atheists and theists. Well,
guess what? After almost two thousand
years of Christian domination over Western culture—of near-total control over
all aspects of morality, psychology, and ontology—we’re sick of the endless and
ridiculous oppression and violence that continues to take place in the name of
religion. Telling people what to do based on what you’ve arbitrary decided to
be true and then condemning any efforts to determine objective truth based on
the workings of the universe is the very epitome of tyranny, and that is what
we oppose.
The
world has simply become far too crowded and our technology far too powerful to
allow policy decisions to continue to be guided by ancient superstitions. That
said, atheists will continue to tolerate the foolishness of others’ faith-based
beliefs and irrational fancies for however long such vestiges remain a curse on
the species. No one is going to die by
our swords; but nor shall they remain forever sheltered from our words. We’ll
respect everyone’s right to believe what they wish but the beliefs themselves
are fair game.
Theists
might as well get used to our presence. We’re not going away, we’re not
shutting up, and our numbers are only growing larger. Every time Rick Santorum
or Pat Robertson open their mouths, more atheists emerge from the shadows.
Every time a suicide bomber blows up a crowded market or an imam issues a fatwa
against an infidel, more freethinkers rally to the cause. Every time Congress
gathers on the capitol steps to sing “God Bless America,” resistance grows. So
look out; as more and more minds become emancipated, it begets a snowball
effect, and with an avalanche steadily building, the days of religious despotism
on this planet are numbered.
Colby
Hess is a freelance writer and photographer living near Seattle, WA. He is
currently writing a book about science, philosophy, and freethought. Follow him
on Twitter @ColbyTHess.
Originally
published as: “Slandering the Heretics” on May 31,
2012 by Disinformation > http://www.disinfo.com/2012/05/slandering-the-heretics/
0 comments:
Post a Comment