There is a lively discourse currently going on about the nature of religion as a discussion topic. In particular, there is this pernicious tendency to prevent open critiques of religion in much the same way that almost any other topic in these forums might be critiqued, especially when the religion being discussed is one of the religions that enjoys a privileged status. And I have so far read some very well-written and eloquent rebuttals to this sentiment. Still, whenever these nerves get opened up, I feel there are some other sentiments that sometimes go unaddressed, that might otherwise enhance the level of discourse that we often see in these dust-ups.
So here are just some thoughts I have on the whole issue.
I look at certain individuals who call themselves Christians, who advocate hateful bigotry, or participate in atrocious behavior, and I denounce them.
I can condemn the actions and the rhetoric of those individuals, without directing that condemnation at everyone who calls themselves a Christian. And in identifying them as Christians, I only do so because the individuals themselves claim that their interpretations of those specific tenets are what guided those individuals to their paths of hatred and animosity. It is not to ascribe being hateful and bigoted as being an integral part of those tenets themselves.
I do not see that as an attack on Christianity, or all religion.
I look at certain individuals who call themselves Muslims, who advocate hateful bigotry, or participate in atrocious behavior, and I denounce them.
I can condemn the actions and the rhetoric of those individuals, without directing that condemnation at everyone who calls themselves a Muslim. And in identifying them as Muslim, I only do so because the individuals themselves claim that their interpretations of those specific tenets are what guided those individuals to their paths of hatred and animosity. It is not to ascribe being hateful and bigoted as being an integral part of those tenets themselves.
I do not see that as an attack on Islam, or all religion.
I look at certain individuals who call themselves Atheists, who advocate hateful bigotry, or participate in atrocious behavior, and I denounce them.
I can condemn the actions and the rhetoric of those individuals, without directing that condemnation at everyone who calls themselves an Atheist. And in identifying them as Atheist, I only do so because the individuals themselves claim that their interpretations of those specific tenets are what guided those individuals to their paths of hatred and animosity. It is not to ascribe being hateful and bigoted as being an integral part of those tenets themselves.
I do not see that as an attack on Atheism, or all non-religions.
And in a lot of these cases, of these individuals who attribute their disparaging speech or acts to their specific beliefs, it occurs to me that they are merely using said belief (or non-belief) as a useful tool to justify their vitriol, regardless of what the tenets actually teach. A lot of times doing so, using their religion to justify their otherwise unacceptable behavior, is a convenient way of gaining supporters, or dividing opponents. But in the end, the religion itself perhaps is not the driver of the vehicle. So for example, I can see a Christian who is against gay marriage still being against gay marriage, even if they weren't Christian. But they use their Christianity to justify their leanings merely because it is convenient. Or if not their religion, their upbringing, or geographic location, or their social status.
Some people like to say religion has been the cause of a lot of atrocities. And others like to make the same claims about anti-religion. In the end, how can either one of these claimants be more right or wrong than the other?
It's not that any or all of these people are right or wrong. It's that, what does that even prove? Atrocities, like the ones that are often cited, are generally committed by a group of human beings against another group of human beings, regardless of reasons. If it's not about religion, then it's about looks, or geography, or who has more stuff. In this regard, I do not see religion or non-religion as being all that consequential.
I can see much of the same atrocities occurring even in a world where there were no religions, where we all looked the same, came from the same background, and possessed identical things; so long as we humans are still out and about, I cannot imagine that we would be completely purged of the elements that are truly at the root of these atrocities.
Finally, should all Christians have to speak for all the bad ones, even when the good far outnumber the bad? Should all Muslims have to speak for all the bad ones, even when the good far outnumber the bad? Should all Atheists have to speak for all the bad ones, even when the good far outnumber the bad?
Of course not. But likewise, when it is the bad ones being targeted and condemned for all the reasons that qualify them as bad, the good ones should not feel like they are also under attack, if they are not the ones participating in the bad behavior and rhetoric. Just like one wouldn't argue that all men are under attack when women speak out against rape, or all straight people are under attack when gay people want equal rights. Which is just as well, because it would be just as absurd to ascribe the bad behavior of the few bad apples to all the other members of that group. As if there is any group of human beings out here that is completely homogenous, that is completely devoid of its share of bad apples.
In the end, I do not like the idea of any anti-theists disparaging the very idea of religion itself, any more than I like the idea of theists disparaging the very idea of Atheism itself. On the other hand, the fact that only one is being highlighted as a problem over the other, even though both are tangibly expressed, is just a further example of the role that privilege plays in this issue, that I hope this diary might illuminate a little.
I do not know how much this will enhance the discourse already underway, but at the very least, I hope this elucidates the motivations of people like me, who by speaking out about religion, are actually doing their best to make sure it is treated just like anything else, rather than in a prejudicial manner.