However it has got me thinking. I'm as guilty as the rest of us for something I've noticed a lot on Twitter, from plenty of left wingers, gay people, liberals and the like: the mocking of religion and its followers. It's not unusual for this to overspill into quite militant and aggressive atheism. It's worth a bit of reflection I feel.
The first thing to say is I am not in the slightest religious. I was never brought up with it and had the usual British aversion therapy of religious school assemblies (surely these masterpieces of boredom are *designed* by anti-religionists?). Although I have quite a strong set of personal moral beliefs, I am agnostic/ vaguely spiritual at very best. I think that's reasonably typical in this country.
 |
| Aversion Therapy? Religious Assemblies at Schools |
What I'm noticing, though, is a level of intolerance, mockery and sometimes outright hostility towards anyone who has a faith and is prepared to announce it. I have seen an intelligent, thinking liberal whom I very much admire put the word God in inverted commas on Twitter. Why does he feel the need to do that? We all recognise what is meant by God and have our own views on whether such a thing exists or not.
I saw another Twitter buddy putting out there today in a series of tweets the proposition that Christ was probably gay. When I asked about it, he said that "ridicule is sometimes the best way to challenge intolerance and bigotry."
Another wonderful friend (who teaches classes on prejudice in the States) said she would borrow parts from a really good blog I referred her to but (in my opinion) somewhat pointedly added that she would "miss out the religious bits".
I've also no doubt many gay people used the word "Christian" as a by-word for homophobic, bigoted and plain nasty. Describe someone as "Christian" with the right tone and you hardly need say anything more. I'm not proud to say I've done it myself.
Prejudice Cuts Both Ways
My personal definition of prejudice is that it is lumping people together in groups and prejudging them on that basis. It's not rocket science to suggest that this cuts both ways. The type of stereotyping and ascribing collective views to some 2.2 billion people is the type of thing my open-minded liberal lefty friends would scream to high heaven about if it were done of all gay people or of all Muslims.
Who actually says that all Christians are intolerant and bigoted and therefore it's okay to goad them (or that it would actually make them less intolerant or bigoted if you did)? Who says that because a message is framed in a religious way makes it any less valuable or applicable? Who says that "God" should be put in inverted commas to make the point that the writer is a non-believer?
Twitter to the Rescue!
One of the things I love about Twitter is the contact I have with people who wouldn't ordinarily be in my life. Talking to them constantly challenges me and at least makes me realise when I'm falling into this type of trap. I follow an Anglican bishop (the kindest, most tolerant man imaginable) and two Anglican priests. I never go to Church and therefore these contacts are invaluable in breaking down my own tendency to prejudge. One of the priests holds personal and political views that are at 180 degrees to many of my own, but he has always been polite, kind and respectful in his interactions with me. The other priest is simply a honey and one of the sweetest, most thoughtful women imaginable. She also happens to be an open-minded liberal type, demonstrating again the fallacy of assuming anything solely because of a person's faith.
I've also found out over time that many of the people I interact with on Twitter have some form of faith, often to my surprise. Only this Sunday one mentioned in passing that he was off to Church. I'd never heard anything to suggest any religious belief from him. These people don't appear to hate me or prejudge me because I'm gay and agnostic - actually they're quite lovely and friendly to me - so why should I dislike or prejudge them for their faith?
God Botherers
"WELL" you might say - it would all be fine if these god-botherers kept their views to themselves. Yes... except they generally do. Has any one of the people I mentioned above ever tried to teach me about the word of Jesus? No. Their religious beliefs might angle their views on something like abortion, but then there are people of no faith who hold all sorts of different opinions on this too and Christian teaching is far from universal on such matters.
Try also to think back to the last time you actually had a Christian try to evangelise or "convert" you and whether this is a regular occurrence in your life. In all my 40 years *puts on flat cap and slippers* it has been limited to a couple of knocks on the door by Jehovah's Witnesses (always dealt with by a polite "no thanks" and mutual smiles). Oh and then there was the REALLY CUTE GUY at the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem, who I mistakenly thought was trying to pick me up when I was 18 (darn).
Given I live in a Christian country, collectively they seem to be pretty rubbish at going out at spreading the word - or perhaps this is just another negative stereotype we have about them?
 |
| Note the misuse of the apostrophe! :o |
Yes, I've seen some Christians picketing events like Gay Pride. I'm well aware of the views of the religious right in the USA and I've little doubt a bad religious upbringing has the capacity to entirely screw up kids. I know in great detail the failings of the Church through history from the institutionalised teaching of anti-Semitism, through the Crusades, the Inquisition and on to the appalling way the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in particular has dealt with the issue of abuse by priests.
But does all this give me the justification today to prejudge, pillory and dislike each and every individual Christian I come into contact with or to mock their faith? I really don't think it does. Far from everyone who is a Christian ascribes to a fundamentalist interpretation of their faith - and even those who do can only be judged on their own actions and the impact they have on others. Far from every priest is a kiddie fiddler. Not every kid who was badly screwed up by his/her parents had a religious upbringing. There aren't *that* many people around who still remember 1492 personally... etc etc.
In any case what are we proposing? Guys, we share this planet with a lot of people who don't agree with us. Is angry intolerance and hatred the way to make it a better place? Like it or not, 2.2 billion is a lot of people. Just as the homophobic right wishing that gays disappear will not make them vanish, so collectively hating or jeering Christians is, in my opinion, not going to have any effect other than to make you an unhappy person. "Live and let live" is however a philosophy that can have a hugely positive effect on us all.
Fairy Tales?
When I hear the stories of the Bible, I really do think "fairy tales." That is my personal subjective view. I know there are many highly intelligent people who would disagree, however, and whilst I cannot personally see how they could rationally believe these stories, there's no doubt I wish to respect their freedom of belief.
I'd hope that few reading this blog would disagree that freedom of belief should be allowed... but I think it's important to note that "respecting" in this context cannot include mocking or offending - once again something I have done that I'm not proud of. It has to mean allowing people to worship as they think fit, to accord them dignity in doing so, and the right to express their beliefs without intolerance and judgementalism.
 |
| Christians: great line in art & buildings btw |
Moving on from the stories, the core Christian faith messages of tolerance, love, acceptance, forgiveness and kindness of spirit are ones which I wholeheartedly agree with. I am increasingly seeing the need for non-believers (including myself) to exercise them towards Christians.
There *is* definitely a weight of history that stops us from acknowledging these characteristics when they are applied by ordinary people of little, some or much faith - but that is no excuse. As I said, surely prejudice works from all angles, not just the liberal causes we believe deserve to be protected from it?
Peter, that's a fine article and well worded. My father, an Anglican priest, is exactly like those other tolerant, wise and kind priests you mention, and he was a role model to me in so many ways. He hated the bigots as fervently as any atheist does (he was proud to have officiated at the first ordination of women priests, in Bristol Cathedral). He was not troubled when all three of his sons eventually decided to abandon their faith and never once forced us to go to church (though as children we were content to).
ReplyDeleteWhen Twitter bullies write tweets like one I saw today ("why are Christians such freaks?"), I think 'if only you could meet my Dad'. It wouldn't necessarily change their minds, of course, but it would provide an alternative to the Bible-and-gay-bashing stereotypes these bullies probably have in mind.
I tend to agree with the sentiment, though I always experience some degree of cognitive dissonance when I see the more extreme manifestations of irrational belief that flower from a fertile bed of tolerance and community-minded acceptance. On one hand it seems churlish to point out to someone who finds comfort in the gentle tales of compassion contained in the Gospel that they are of doubtful historicity. On the other hand when I see fundamentalists trying to shape politics based on old testament teachings I'm reminded of the dangers of acquiescing to the inviolable santicity of personal religious belief. Atheism is at its most unseemly when it is mocking and triumphalist but allowing an area of discussion that still permeates geopolitics to remain out of bounds leaves a fault line in society that can be exploited by the unscrupulous. I'm reminded of this: http://xkcd.com/154/
ReplyDeleteI suppose it's a matter of the inverse of 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. I went to university with a lot of religious people, mostly Christian, and they were invariably lovely. But I find religion, as a version of the embracing of blind faith and the rejection of reason (as it often is) rather a depressing human characteristic (I'll conveniently sidestep the accusation of 'blind faith in reason').
ReplyDeleteAlthough I try, and would agree we should all try, to take each person on their own merits, experience has taught me to be wary of people who profess a religion, as most world religions have preached (and continue to preach) intolerance towards homosexuals in particular.
Tolerance, love, acceptance, forgiveness and kindness of spirit are great attributes, but whether a person demonstrates them seems to be mostly unrelated to whether they are Christian or not. I suppose in that sense, taking people as they come really is the best course of action.
Apologies if these are disjointed comments.
Some extremely good points made here.
ReplyDeleteThe level of vitriol is not only uncivil, it's also counter-productive. Atheism has an extremely important role in the religious world of keeping religious believers on their toes. It forces us out of complacency over issues like evil, authority, the status of scripture and so on. It keeps us honest and prevents us from lapsing into the idea that we have all the answers. Religion, contrary to common misperception, is not about providing concrete answers to the big questions, but providing a new way of addressing them.
Atheism also has an essential role in purging religion of the idolatrous and darker tendencies that any human endeavour can fall into. Despite the New Atheist books being, in large part, drivel, they do make some very good points about the danger of religious believers and institutions to lapse into tribalism, superstition, idolatry, certainty and hatred. We need to be kept on our toes and realise that while we at our best articulate the highest impulses in humanity, we do not thereby possess moral or epistemic monopolies.
It's also counter-productive in the sense that there is plenty of common cause that can be made on certain issues, but isn't. The antireligious views drive away those religious believers with whom people could otherwise make common cause. There are plenty of religious people who reject creationism, biblical literalism, homophobia and so on (not to mention homeopathy and astrology) on theological grounds. Our ability to speak in the same language as those who do subscribe to those views makes us far more effective advocates for our positions than any atheist could be. Politics being the art of the possible, this ought to be welcomed. Instead we face ridicule and a lot of people give up preferring "a plague on both your houses". It's like the People's Front of Judea all over again.
A respectful dialogue between religious, nonreligious, theistic, atheistic and agnostic views is absolutely essential if we want to get somewhere towards having a civilised society that pursues truth and justice.
Fine as far as it goes, Peter, but I think you overlook a big point. "Ridicule", as you call it, of "Christians" has only really grown since Christians allowed their "brand" to be hijacked by haters and bigots. Almost any new organisation - in the UK, following the US lead - using the name "Christian" has little to do with faith and all to do with prejudice. If someone publicly proclaims "Christian values" these days, the only moment for suspense is waiting to discover the object of their hatred. The greatest erosion of respect for Christianity has been caused by insiders using its name in vain and by the silence of believers who do not share their extreme views.
ReplyDeleteNicely put.
ReplyDeleteI've also noticed, amongst online liberals culture vultures, a real keenness to tell people of faith that they are stupid.