I don’t have a problem working with religious people; I do it all the time. For example, I got up this morning thanks to an alarm on a phone that is likely built by several religious people. I put on clothes that were likely tailored by religious people, brought in a store that was staffed, largely, by religious people. I then got into a car that was mostly built by religious people, drove down a road that was largely built and funded by religious individuals, and came into my place of employment, which is largely staffed by religious people, so that I could get my paycheck, which is signed by religious people. And so it goes. So I obviously have no qualms about working and collaborating with religious people.
The problem comes when religious people expect me to act religious in order to work with him. If I came into my workplace and was expected to participate in a prayer, I would probably have a problem with that. I don’t want to fake endorsement of certain religious creeds that I don’t like. And I also think that if my boss is allowed to wax theological at my workplace, I should be able to respond with my own views on religion.
Many atheists and religious people seem to think that this is an unnecessarily militant position. I do not see it as militant. I see it as honest. I tend to think that if a place requires you to take a position of deference to a religion, the focus is less on the work being done, and more on endorsing the religion. Because I do not want to endorse religion, I am unlikely to want to participate in that environment. And if I do participate in that environment and religious views come up, I would like to reserve the right to speak my mind.
But this does not mean that I do not want to hang out with religious people. I have a lot of Christian friends, we hang out all the time, and we get along swell. If religion comes up, we talk about it candidly and openly. That does not mean, of course, that we are no longer friends. On the contrary, it shows that we are friends who are able to be honest with each other about our disagreements.
Where a lot of atheists and religious people get riled up is when we discuss my attitude towards attending a church sponsored soup kitchen with an evangelistic bent that that encourages prayer and has a sermon. I am unlikely to volunteer, and if I do volunteer and religion comes up, I reserve the right to speak my mind. My thinking is that I should be able to do that.
Honestly, why does religion have to do with getting people soup? I live perpetual confusion, here in Fort Worth, Texas, that so many think Christianity and soup kitchens need to go together. We didn’t need religion involved when I got my Starbucks coffee from the religious person across the counter. So there is nothing unusual about people getting food without religion being involved. Why does charity have to be so different? Why do we need to set up lines of religion in order to help people?
This is not just an annoyance that I have as an atheist. It is something that bothered me back when I was a Christian, as well. It seemed sometimes that all the denominations were competing to try to show they did more for the homeless. Why did charity have to be fueled by a drive to brand others with a religion’s seal? Even now, as an atheist, as much as I support secular efforts to make the world a better place for disadvantaged populations, I do not understand why anyone would be expected to toe a party line when it comes to helping others via charity.
When I go to McDonalds, my focus is on the burger, not on the religion of the person behind the counter. Why does that situation need to change when it comes to charity? Why should people be expected to pay for soup with respect for religious beliefs, or the lack thereof? If you want to help someone who needs food, help them. No need to draw religious or non religious lines.
So that is my basic position. I will work with people who are religious, but not if doing so carries the connotation, or shows an expectation, for me to respect religion myself.
Incidentally, this also applies to my stance on joining different social classes. While I agree with many progressive Christian conclusions on social issues, I disagree with the way most of them seem to come to their conclusions on the social issues. The concept of God as an authority figure creates a nonexistent puppet being that can manipulate people, and I tend to think that there is something fundamentally dishonest about endorsing that being or empowering it. I strongly think that doing things simply because we think God wants us to do them is a very dangerous thing to do. Rather, I think that we should do things because of variables that actually exist in the world. So while I may endorse a progressive Christian’s stance on a social issue, I reserve the right to voice strongly disagreement with how they came to that stance.
Fundamentalist Christians, it goes without saying, I disagree strongly with. But I also have a soft spot in my heart for them, because, in many cases, they are victims of the same thinking that many progressive Christians have. In my view, the enemy is not so much the people, as much as it is in the concept of God itself, a concept that has the power to override all human emotion, empathy, logic, and reason. Which is why I’m against using progressive Christian stances to manipulate fundamentalists. The problem, fundamentally, is God. That guy’s gotta go.
Because of this stance, many people say I’m not just an atheist, but an anti-theist.
I’m proud to accept the title.
Thanks for reading.