the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

aka, "why can't you just humor people, diana, and stop telling people what you think of their faith?"

Well, you gots questions and polite suggestions, and of course, I gots answers and responses. B)

First, background: what happened to provoke this?

Yesterday, I was reading my news feed on Facebook (the part where multitudes of other people post their statuses and such) and was again struck by the huge numbers of people who post stuff like this:

Let's see how many true Christians are on FB! Press Like if Jesus is your Savior!!

You may not like me, but jesus thinks im to die for. :)

Press Like if you love God!

etc.

So on my own status on my own wall, I posted this:

If you've had it up to here with mindless FB status professions of faith, you are not alone.

Every time I read one of these statuses, I think, "Why does this person feel he needs to tell everyone? Repeatedly, no less. Does he think we can't tell by watching?"

Almost immediately, a theist friend commented as follows:

Diana, why does it bother you that we want to profess our love for our creator? If it bothers you that bad just ignore them like I do most of the things that I see from others.... It's called freedom of speech and thank God we still have that!!!

Many of my atheist friends, in one form or another, laid into her. I was among them, because...well, several reasons, many of which are neatly represented in her comment. (As the conversation went on, the discussion turned out to be fruitful. I respect her for sticking in there. The discussion ended very nicely, in my opinion. This blog post is certainly not an attack on her. It is an attack on some of the ideas she expressed which I've heard countless times. It's time these ideas were challenged.)

So why do I respond so negatively to such comments? Let me count the ways.

1. I'm sick of having that "freedom of speech" bollocks thrown in my face. For those who keep this accusation in your rear pocket in case of emergency (like, you're offended that I would dare do anything other than clap you on the back for religious, syncophantic twaddle) here's a basic thing you need to get your head around:

I do nothing to your freedom of speech

when I exercise my own.

My friend (quoted above) is far from the first person to imply that I've somehow forgotten she has a right to say what she wants, so I address this to all believers who produce this canard: You have "freedom of speech" confused with our culture's tacit agreement to allow Christians--but not atheists--to say anything they want about their beliefs without being challenged. You have your one-sided cultural expectations confused with freedom. Using your freedom of speech to suggest I shouldn't use my own is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.

2. You didn't get your freedom of speech from God. The bible is actually against freedom of speech (here's a well-written argument if you're interested). The major contributers to your freedom of speech were Voltaire, Locke, Hume, Milton, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill. Let's go ahead and add all those founding fathers who refused to sign any Constitution without a guarantee that Amendments would be added shortly to protect individual rights.

Our freedom of speech is far from religiously motivated. Instead, it's clearly an idea which evolved slowly.

Some of you might be saying, "Wait! We're endowed by our creator by certain unalienable rights! Doesn't that mean God gives us freedom of speech?"

Short answer: no.

Long answer:

The idea of "unalienable rights" is one most Americans take as a given. In fact, it is anything but. It's nice to believe that we have a "natural" right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"* but when Jefferson put this into the Declaration of Independence, he assumed--for the sake of the argument he was about to make--that our "unalienable rights" were not disputed.

* I cannot think of this phrase without being reminded of an ancient Frank and Ernest cartoon which featured the founding fathers gathered around the table with the parchment unrolled before them. One says, "I don't know, Tom. 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Broads' doesn't sound right. Try 'Happiness.'"

They are. First, no one can seem to agree on which rights are "natural" (which is just another word for unalienable). For example, Jefferson lifted this line from Locke, who'd written that we had the unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and property."

Second, Jefferson (a deist, incidentally) meant this immortal line to apply to white, landowning males only. Do the rest of us have "unalienable rights"? Apparently not. Not children, not women, not indentured servants, and certainly not slaves. But in theory, "natural rights" are supposed to be morally universal. They demonstrably are not.

Third, you'll find nothing in the bible about "natural rights" in any form. What you will find is solid basis for the divine right of kings, which natural rights evolved in direct opposition to.

I know that the divine right of kings has fallen into disfavor in the west, and is mocked by Christians and non-Christians alike as being corrupt and dangerous and, well, stupid. I agree that it is all of these things. However, the biblical passages which clearly call for it do not go away simply because we have realized how insane they are. Consider Romans 13:

¹Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ²Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ³For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. ⁴For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ⁵Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. ⁶This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. ⁷Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

There you have it. Not only is it clear that "God's servants" (aka, those authorities appointed over you) have the God-given right to deprive you of life, liberty, and anything else you may consider "unalienable rights," but also it's worth noting (once again) that the Declaration of Independence itself was distinctly anti-Christian in its main intent: to declare independence from King George, the sovereign whom God himself appointed over us.

3. As for the "why does it bother you" question, why does it bother you that I get sick of seeing such things--to the point that you say something to me about it?

See how that works? ;)

***

So now, I'll include a few thoughts from related discussions. The above noted discussion, not aimed at theists but apparently attractive to a couple of them, provoked my cousin Curtis to post a note on his Facebook wall, that he told me was inspired by me. The relevant bit is this:

Unfortunately, the majority of the theists I know do not enjoy arguing religion, but all of the atheists I know do.  So each time one of my theist associates decides to proclaim his or her faith, a mutual atheist associate decides it is time to try and get a good argument going.  Now I am not one to walk away from a good argument, so long as it is a productive one and the parties involved have all entered the argument with the intention of arguing.  However, with the exception of civil rights, I will never try to force my opinion on someone who clearly is not interested in arguing the subject.

I have always been a firm believer in the philosophy of live and let live.  I have my opinions and you have yours.  I welcome a good discussion about my opinion so that we may try to sway one another to the other’s viewpoint.  But, it really irks me when a person repeatedly lashes out at another for the sole purpose of trying to start an argument that the targeted person clearly is not interested in having.  Can’t we all just get along?

Here, in a nutshell, is how I read this: theists can say anything they want and their motivations are presumed pure. Atheists cannot say anything we want because our motivations are assumed impure; we're "lashing out...for the sole purpose of trying to start an argument" with a person who doesn't want to argue.

In other words, Christians who reassure one another that their invisible friend exists and loves them are harmless, acting out of innocence and love, and shouldn't be challenged because while they want to talk about what they believe (clearly), they don't want to talk about it. Weird. At the same time, atheists who make comments about Christians being misled are just assholes.

Is there a double standard here, or...is it just me?

My comment to him, which I think sums up this double standard, was this:

I'm guessing that you AREN'T suggesting that your CHRISTIAN friends stop commenting about their faith because their remarks might upset your ATHEIST friends.

Right. Moving on.

4. Why can't you just live and let live, Diana?

This is an excellent question, and it has a multi-pronged answer.

a. I do. We just have different understandings of what this entails. I'm not asking anyone to change their religion. I'm not making anyone have a discussion with me. I rarely if ever post atheistic stuff to other people's walls,* and I never bring it up in an effort to "evangelize" anyone. I don't go around making anti-faith based comments in an effort to ferret out the hidden atheists around so I can get a support base (I don't need to be reassured there is no god). I don't go door to door handing out atheist tracts and trying to talk people out of going to church. I'm not trying to pass laws which will keep the religious from worshipping in any way which is not harmful to others. I don't picket churches with signs that say YOU'RE WASTING YOUR LIFE. I don't picket funerals with placards that read THERE IS NO HEAVEN. YOUR LOVED ONE IS WORM FOOD! I don't threaten believers with eternal nothingness if they don't turn from their self-righteous ways. I don't disfellowship believers. I don't smugly tell people who have asked me a question about my belief that I pity them, and I hope someday they'll discover the joy of atheism.

* With the noted exception, one day, of Robby. I've already been through that, though.

For all of these and more, I cannot say the same for Christians.

It's time we start asking any Christian who does one or more of these why she cannot just live and let live.

b. I enjoy talking about religious belief. Most believers consider this an affront because I clearly don't believe what they do. I have a handful of good friends who are Christians with whom I can talk about scripture and history and interpretations all day long, and we never have a problem. Most Christians, however, think atheists shouldn't be interested in religion because they don't believe it themselves, which is just silly. I'm more intrigued with the machinations of the religious machine upon the psyche and how people rationalize dropping some obviously literal rules while clinging to others (usually to use as a weapon) than I ever was as a believer.

c. I reserve the right to use your professed beliefs against you, should the occasion arise. If you don't want this to happen, either stop professing your beliefs altogether or make a point of behaving in a way which does not make you look like a hypocrite.

Again, though, when I do this, people tend to react as though I'm just being an asshole. I seriously doubt they'd think the same of their preacher if he were to point out the divide between claims and behaviors. There's a weird assumption that the only person who can point out the chasm between professed belief and behavior is another believer of the same stripe, but that's just silly. You're either being consistent or you aren't; the source of the observation is irrelevant. Just because an atheist points out your inconsistency does not make you consistent.

d. Why do you bring up religion if you don't want to discuss it? My theory here is that Christians toss out faith-based remarks to see if you may be an ally. If you are, they're happy to discuss their religion all day long, because you won't challenge them. You will only help reinforce what they're trying to believe. Another possible reason for such chumming is to see if you might be interested in converting. Because they believe they have a right to not be contradicted, questioned, or ridiculed concerning their beliefs,* any response other than sheeplike approval or polite silence is considered an attack. So when I ask why they believe as they do, which is generally how these non-discussions get non-started, even though they started the discussion, I'm the asshole. Right.

* This is intimitely tied to the silly notion that we should respect all beliefs, a plea I get routinely from Christians, to which my response is this: Oh please. :roll: You don't respect my atheism. Not even a tiny bit. And I'm not going to pretend to respect your superstition. I respect you as a person, I respect your character if you deserve it, and I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but respect your beliefs? That's just daft.

Along those lines, I tried to get my family to leave me alone about my religion for years. Years. I was polite. I changed the subject. I walked away. When that didn't work, I drove away, and stayed gone for years. So I got letters and emails from other family members preaching at me and telling me I was going to hell. I tried to have conversations about belief, in order to help them understand my position. My questions and thoughts were ignored. More family members came after me in various forms. All this time, I was polite. I left them alone. All I asked was for them to leave me alone. What did it take to make them stop?

I attacked them. I dismantled their letters and and arguments piece by piece. As their religion drives them to be so consistently rude and even makes them feel righteous about it, I launched a full frontal attack on their religion.

It only took one or two highly gossiped such exchanges, as it turned out, for my family to show me respect when it came to religion. That is, shut up about it with me. Don't preach. Don't send me Christian apologetics* stupidity. If you want to talk, you must listen to my objections and address them (which I have reason to believe Daddy is doing now).

* The difference between apologetics and science is that science begins with the facts and a hypothesis and works toward a conclusion which works with all the facts while apologetics begins with a conclusion then collects any information which seems to support it while ignoring or attempting to discount any information which does not. Please do not confuse the two. One is an endeavor to better understand our world while the other is an endeavor to prove oneself "right" at any cost. Apologetics are not worthy of respect.

How long did it take me to get to that point with my family? If we start from the time they started asking why I'd turned my back on God etc. then count years to the first real conversation which has been attempted?

25 years

BTW...if you walk away from this post smugly thinking that I'm just bitter because I've had bad experiences with Christians, you haven't been listening at all. You've just looked for some indication that one of your preconceived notions is correct until you found it. That isn't listening, and it certainly isn't thinking.

Yes, I've had bad experiences with Christians (more my own family than any others). Yes, their nutty beliefs and their refusal to live and let live have driven a huge wedge between us. But I don't just go off on any Christian like a rabid dog. If you're perceiving my behavior that way--and I don't care if you're religious or not--you have a double standard. It's time you rethought it.

I began with a question and a cliche.

1. Why can't we all just get along?

2. Never talk about sex, politics, or religion.

We can't all just get along until the double standard goes away. You can talk about anything you want--freedom of speech, remember?--but so can I. If you bring up religion, don't be shocked if I actually want to discuss it instead of mindlessly bleating approval. You can be hateful in the name of love if that's what floats your boat, but I will respond in kind. When that happens, I am being an asshole, but I'm just following your example.*

* Rising above the occasion can work, but most people who expect deference for their belief actually need the slap in the face which can only come from fighting fire with fire.

I don't have much of a problem talking about sex. But politics and religion? Little else is worth discussing.

d