I am somewhat stunned these days when someone tells me I am speaking too strongly against Christianity. I frequently worry that I am not speaking strongly enough. I do believe that it is usually, if not always, unhealthy to insult individuals – I think that it’s healthy to respect individuals, and I think that we should do our best to ensure that the stances we have reflect that respect. But I think that ideals are there to help people; people aren’t there to help ideals. So I generally don’t respect ideals when they get in the way of respecting people.
I used to think that it was inconsistent to say that one was intolerant of intolerance. But there’s a difference between being intolerant of ideals, and being intolerant of people. As has been said in various forms in an anonymous quote that’s been circulating around the Internet recently, a healthy stance is this: I’ll respect your beliefs so long as your beliefs don’t disrespect my existence.
And Christianity has a long history of disrespecting the existence of humanity, because at the heart of it is the doctrine that there is something so fundamentally wrong with us that we deserve eternity in torment. To get out of what you deserve you have to believe that a flawless water walking god-man born of a virgin died and suffered in your place as a sacrifice for how terrible you are, and you have to live the rest of your life dead to who you really are and trying to live the life He would like you to live – no matter how much this life goes against your sensibilities, your desires, the natural beauty in your heart, or the aptitude of your mind. It’s easy to forget that Christianity has that effect, because so often you’re encouraged to respect it in many cultures (like the Bible Belt of Texas).
To be completely fair, there are plenty of people who get along relatively well with Christianity; somehow they’ve gotten used to the norms — perhaps they don’t have any tendencies that don’t line up with the ideals of the manifestation of the Christianity they chose, they have a tight-knit group of similar thinking religious friends and/or family they get along with awesomely, the concepts fit their learned preferences like a good pair of broken-in Wranglers, and it works. So, because of that, it’s a little hard to see that there is an issue here, for some — both Christians and non-Christians — who see people seeming to get along with their Christian lives without significant negative side effects. You hear individuals say that we should just respect religions like Christianity, and move on.
But at the same time, I think it would be missing the elephant in the room to ignore the clear reality that Christianity has a long record of hurting plenty of people. Especially Fundamentalist Christianity. And the pain it inflicts, I think, makes it necessary to force honesty about the negative aspects of the religion. Rather than supporting it blindly, it seems conducive to look at Christianity as the harmful thing that, in many ways, it actually is if we want to infuse an inherent respect and dignity in our view of humanity that does not disrespect people for the very fact of their existence, nor add any moral weight to faith in very consequential propositions that don’t have strong evidence behind them.
When you have an ideology that denies you of your personal, basic human identification with dignity and worth if you don’t believe in it, you create a group of people that you can do many things to. You can think they’re going to spend eternity in hellfire, you can call the love they share sin, you can torture heretics, you can declare war against infidel countries, you can stone them to death…the list goes on. Take away the dignity of someone’s humanity, and subordinate that dignity to an ideal, and you can do anything to that person an think you’re right. I wish it was as easy for people from my former religion, Christianity, to see this principle in their own religion as clearly as they can see it in the religion of Islam. Which is why I was grateful for Obama yesterday, when he took a step towards showing how religion often has problems…
There’s no two ways about it — the religion of Islam has, in many places, led to some very disturbing actions. But so has Christianity. What they have in common is a mechanism to dehumanize individuals who don’t accept their beliefs. Don’t get me wrong — of course, some forms of Christianity and Islam are much more tolerant than others. However, the truth remains that there is a long history of violence in Christianity, and that this violence is instigated by the concept of there being a difference between God’s chosen people, and those who are infidels. It is highly hypocritical for us to see the results of this dynamic in other religions, and yet fail to see it in the current and past events instigated and justified within the arenas of Christendom.
The fight for human dignity and respect does not stop with Islam, or Christianity, or any ideology, for that matter. It requires a strong criticism of any ideals that get in the way of respect for our existence. Such criticism is difficult, and at times must be strident to have an impact, especially in places where morality has been twisted so that ideals cruelly create oppressive experiences for individuals. It can be difficult and discouraging at times. But if we are going to break the barriers that deny respect to unjustly marginalized parts of humanity, such criticism is necessary. Which is why, on Wednesday, I was proud to support much of Obama’s criticism.
I think it’s healthy to fight strongly against a lack of respect of humanity wherever it is found — in religion, or outside. The reason I do not support religion is because of the institutionalized regularity with which it marginalizes or seeks to eradicate perceptions of the inherent value within human existences as opposed to their mere ideals. I think this marginalization is inherent to the ideals of several faiths, including both Christianity and Islam, which is why I think Obama’s statement that the problem is a perversion or distortion of religion — I would beg to differ that the disrespect of humanity, the subordination of human desires and existences to the tyranny of ideals set into place by imaginary beings, is inherent to both of these religions.
It would be remiss, however, for me not to openly admit that atheism can have the same tendencies. I think it is perfectly fine to argue strongly and insistently against the ideals that construct dividing barriers in our culture — even, at times, necessary. I often litter descriptions of disdain for these ideals with expletives and rather firm denials to pleas for me to apologize for insulting these barriers. I think that ideals need to be insulted to respect individuals, at times. However, wherever — in religion or outside of religion — the inherent value of a human’s existence is denied, I draw the line, because this protection of value governs the way I orient myself in relation to ideals. Because, for me, the absence of God in my thinking led for me to replace what didn’t exist with that which did; it was an opportunity for me to express a concern and love and passion for humanity that was unbridled by the strictures of religion; to replace a virtual friend with a world full of flesh-and-blood ones. So that’s one major place I disagree with Obama. God does not compel me to combat the tyranny of religion, He IS the tyranny of religion. What compels me to combat the tyranny of oppressive, dehumanizing ideals that devalue human existence is the love I have in my heart for those around the world who do exist, not the tyrannical love of an imaginary being who doesn’t.
Hopefully that makes sense.