deGrasse Tyson says he wouldn’t call himself an atheist because “the moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you. And when you want to have a conversation, they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association.” (0:19) Of course, then he himself goes on to talk about how he’s not an atheist because he’s not an activist, he doesn’t lobby Congress or want to change policies, he doesn’t meet other atheists in pubs and talk about how very much he doesn’t believe in God, etc. – so he seems to box things up as much as anyone else does, of course. Aside from the fact that I’m not convinced he’s telling the truth about not wanting to change policies (he is known for being miffed about the end of manned space travel, for instance), the sentences in his video that really stuck on me were the following:
It’s odd that the word atheist even exists. I don’t play golf; is there a word for non-golf-players? Do non-golf-players gather and strategize? Do non-skiers have a word and come together and talk about the fact that they don’t ski? I can’t do that; I can’t gather round and talk about how much everybody in the room doesn’t believe in God. (2:55)
Being an atheist is, perhaps, very different from all other spiritual views in that it is defined as a lack of subscription to any existing spiritual views. But whether or not it only consists of that lack is debatable. Many atheists would object strongly to deGrasse Tyson’s description of atheists as active, debating, gregarious folk simply because their atheism is a lack of belief in the prevailing religious system and nothing more. But if other atheists are meeting in pubs and discussing their life views, one has to admit that atheism, for those people, consists of more than just a lack of belief in something else. I consider myself an “active” atheist, but I don’t do nearly as much research into evolution and current thoughts on free will and the deterministic universe and the latest updates in the fossil records as other atheists, spurred on at least partially by a desire to deepen their own reflections on the questions “how did we get here?” or “what is morality?”
But rather than starting a possible fist fight over whether atheism is a religion or whether it’s a belief in something rather than a lack of a belief in something, I want to talk about why it’s perfectly logical that there is a word for it. In a way that is completely incomparable to being a non-golfer or a non-skier. The majority of the country does not golf, nor does the majority ski, at least not in a way that they claim it is the source of their morals. Whether or not a person golfs has miniscule to no impact on me. But what they believe about how other people should be treated does. It is not necessary for people who would like to lead our country to suddenly start playing golf once a week and make sure cameras follow them on their rounds, just so the rest of the country can see that they are faithful golfers. People don’t turn en masse to golf gurus, instead of just using their own mental faculties, in order to get advice about how to vote or how to treat their spouses or how to raise their children or what food to eat or who to hate or ask whether or not other people should be allowed to be married or whether or not it’s okay for people to have sex before marriage (or after) or whether or not a person is worth as much as another based on which golf course they prefer to play at. Whether or not abortion, birth control, marriage, slavery, women’s suffrage and equal status as citizens, segregation, etc., are legal, has never been affected by the golfing views of the country’s citizens. I have never had the experience of being called names, had my character denigrated, or being told that I deserved it when my child died or that I'm the reason someone has cancer because some insecure golfer is offended by my non-golfing status.
Need I go on?
Arguing that the label “atheist” is unnecessary is like arguing that we don’t need a word for “homosexual”. But that would only be possible in one or possibly two scenarios. Number one, if every single human being were heterosexual and there was no fathomable alternative. Number two, if homosexuality were so common as to actually be the norm, and/or we assigned absolutely no decreased worth to a person for being in the minority – this would be the reason we don’t have a word for non-golfer, or, say, non-murderer.
So people’s religious views affect others, and those of us who reject religion -- and are therefore in the minority in the United States -- feel the need to call ourselves something. Because we want to make it clear that we exist and that we’re not a part of any of the clubs that everyone else considers normal and necessary in life. Because we want to be able to identify ourselves to the few people who might share our views. And quite honestly, it’s not just because people’s religion has an effect on others, but because many of us believe it has a very negative affect on people that those of us who reject it feel the need to do so actively and openly.
But now I’ve come to the meat of my thoughts for the day. Isn’t that very fact – that the religion of one person has so much effect on another person – the thing that’s weird here? Isn’t it also the beginning of the explanation for how American Christianity is so very different than the flavor currently found in the otherwise much more de facto secular societies of the Western world?
Today I read this article at CNN about how the author, Stephen Prothero, thinks it’s important for realistic, nuanced Christians to be shown on television. He applauds the fact that the new Christian character on Glee, Joe Hart, goes through a struggle between his sexual desires and his Christianity. I agree with him on that point, as criticizing the show for showing a Christian boy as anything but a Flandersesque-eunuch is just silly. But I want to take it one step further.
Prothero’s blog post describes another dilemma that Joe has on the show. Their Christian singing group is raising money by performing singing telegrams for $10 a pop, but then they get a request from a lesbian to send a singing telegram to her girlfriend. Should they say no? Apparently the struggle is played out on the show by having Joe and another character argue about whether the Bible forbids homosexuality:
Mercedes (Amber Riley) calculates that since “one out of every ten people are gay . . . one of the twelve apostles might have been gay.” Sam (Chord Overstreet) observes that “the Bible says it’s an abomination for a man to lay with another man,” prompting Quinn (Dianna Agron) go ask, “Do you know what else the Bible says is an abomination? Eating lobster, planting different crops in the same field, giving somebody a proud look. Not an abomination? Slavery. Jesus never said anything about gay people. That’s a fact.”
I’m a big fan of pointing out how hypocritically and dynamically people literalize the Bible for their own ends. But I actually don’t think any of that is the point here. Let’s all agree for a moment that the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin. Let’s just assume that a person engaging in homosexual acts or a homosexual lifestyle is, in fact, going against God’s and Jesus’s will. My question becomes: so? Is that really what the dilemma should have been about?
The point of defining yourself as a Christian would, correct me if I’m wrong, imply that you derive your morality from the Bible and from Jesus’s teachings, and that you use that as guidance in your own decisions, actions and lifestyle. But it seems to be treated as a given in American society and politics that being a Christian also supposedly means being not only perfect and sin-free yourself (hence the criticism against Glee for showing Joe as a boy with hormones), but also being a person that rejects, condemns, and refuses to associate even in an everyday, operational, business-like manner with people who are not, according to your definition, perfect. But refresh my memory, where does the Bible – contradictorily or not – state that I’m supposed to keep a 100-meter distance from anyone whose shit stinks? If this is such an important aspect of Christianity, shouldn't the other Christian teens in the show shun Joe for having his own struggle with lust?
In fact, as anyone who has a simple 3-sentence understanding of what the basic philosophy of Christianity is supposed to be knows, neither the Bible nor Jesus says any such thing. Christianity presumes that we’ve all been sinners since the first two human beings to walk the earth; that our lives are a constant struggle to resist temptation; that we will often fail; and that Jesus is there for us to turn to and ask for forgiveness when we have made mistakes. The Gospels are verse after verse, chapter after chapter, of Jesus associating with the people that everyone else has rejected, and telling the hypocrites that the way into heaven is to accept that humans are flawed and treat each other with dignity, respect and kindness.
But this message doesn’t exist in American Christianity. Churches are an exclusive club into which only perfectly sin-free people (which according to Jesus don't exist!) are welcome, and the imperfect but perfectly human that Jesus created his church for are not allowed through the gate. I find it laughable that politicians on the Christian right are constantly being caught in scandals when they are shamed and condemned because their “un-Christian” behavior is uncovered. But not because their hypocrisy is uncovered; rather, because they are missing a golden opportunity! If they had a real understanding of what Christianity is about, they would embrace their foibles! Don’t try to pretend that your daughter didn’t get pregnant before she was married; proudly proclaim that she did and that that’s why we need Jesus and abstinence-only education! Don’t go around pretending to be the straightest fucking arrow in Congress and resign when you’re found playing doctor with a male intern; instead, tell us that it’s your personal experience with man-lust that drives you to make laws against homosexuality and that gives you first-hand knowledge of how homosexuals can be “cured” with the right “treatment”!
I’ve been affected by my culture’s false brand of Christianity enough in my life to have almost completely lost my ability to keep my mouth shut about my distaste for the church. Sometimes I’m sure I’m downright obnoxious. One day my colleague, the guy who teaches the world religions course at our school, teased me by saying something along the lines of “Yeah, a philosophy that teaches you to love your fellow man, I can see why you hate Christianity so much.”
Indeed, very funny, we both laughed, but in all seriousness he was missing the point. The version of Christianity in which loving your neighbor and accepting his flaws are considered the most fundamental has been beaten down and relegated to, at best, a few chapters in a very long book that people profess to live their lives by, but their actions never match their lip service. The verses about loving your neighbor -- or anything from the New Testament, for that matter! -- are hardly the ones that get quoted during election years. If they were, the hot-button issue about marriage would be making divorce (Matthew 19:3-9), not gay marriage (Leviticus 20:13), illegal*.
The irony is that I, despite my extremely firm belief that there is no God, would respect and admire Christianity anyway if the majority of Christians practiced what they (claim to) preach. But as it stands, the public and open practice of Christianity in America seems to be an exercise in doing the opposite of what Jesus taught as often as possible, and expecting everyone else (the president, your next-door neighbor, your kids' teacher, your kids, your friends, your employees, the rest of the world...) to fall in line and do the same.
So it sounds like Glee has given us a bit of nuance in portraying a Christian on TV by showing us that he is not free from lust but rather that he must actively make a decision about whether or not to act on it. That personal, private struggle against sin is, indeed, real Christianity! But the program falls short of giving us a full version of real Christianity. That would have required showing us that Joe and his friends went and sang for the lesbian’s girlfriend without any moral struggle or discussion about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. They would have cited the Gospels** and treated her as a neighbor, despite her not being “one of them”.
*In fact, I'm disappointed with these Leviticus hounders. Forget the aforementioned fact that the same book forbids me to wear jeans; how can Santorum or Bachman look at themselves in the mirror when they're not advocating the death penalty for homosexuals? Why go half way?
**Here or here or here or here or...
1 comment:
Speak of the devil, here's another one: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/12/is-the-black-church-guilty-of-spiritual-hypocrisy-in-same-sex-marriage-debate/?hpt=hp_c1
A good article that also completely misses the aspect of how it's not whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality, but whether or not that should affect anything beyond the private actions of the adherent, that should be the real center of the theological debate.
Post a Comment