Weekly Poll: Should Atheists Shut Up and Stop Upsetting Christians?
Should nonbelievers, skeptics, and atheists simply sit down and shut up lest the poor, sensitive Christians feel offended that anyone would dare challenge or criticize their beliefs? There has been an increasing number of people, including some prominent liberal pundits, who have basically been calling for that to happen. They want more Christians to vote for Democratic candidates and think that the presence of vocal atheists is too off-putting.
That’s a demand for Christian Supremacy: for Christianity to be a privileged ideology which maintains social, cultural, and political power in part because it is kept immune from criticism or challenge. So long as people are prevented from talking about how the emperor has no clothes, the emperor retains power and authority over the sheep who meekly submit. The truth is that we need people who are willing to speak out of turn, willing to be impolite, and willing to rudely challenge those in power.
Christianity isn’t an oppressed minority; Christianity is an ideology which has been behind every unjust tradition and power structure that this nation has ever experienced. Christianity doesn’t need to be pandered to, it needs to be challenged, questioned, stood up to, and even mocked at times. Christians who don’t get that are still part of the problem because they still think that their religion merits special deference and privileges.
Pandering to that attitude in order to attract their political support is like pandering to white racists in order to attract their political support for a program to end racism. Does that makes sense? Of course not. A political party that wants to end privileges for whites has to first convince whites that their privileges are unjust and should never have existed — only then will their support be positive and productive. Similarly, many Christians need to be convinced that the privileges and deference which have traditionally been accorded to Christianity was never just and shouldn’t continue.
Comments
Here I am again, struggling with the way the poll choices are worded. On one hand, it is important for tolerance and open and transparent discussion and expression of one’s beliefs and evidence to support those beliefs be encouraged. However, I strongly disagree with ad hominem directed comments about others, regardless of the venue or topic. To ridicule and condemn out of hand does no service to the person making the argument or expressing the views. That in no way assumes pandering, over accommodation or sacrificing one’s views. It does mean tha the strength of the view and argument will have to rely on persuasiveness, logic, evidence and critical thinking.
Christians cannot be lumped into one category, just as no group can be considered entirely homogenized. There are significant differences within groups, and generalizations such as this don’t have much utility, let alone validity or reliability.
There are times when people with specific beliefs do need to be accommodated in those beliefs. For example, when people are dealing with significant health problems and ask to have someone pray with them, as a nurse, I certainly do stand with them, hold their hands, pat a shoulder, lend my presence and pray with them if I know the words to their prayer of choice. It doesn’t make me a believer or a religious advocate - it makes me a therapeutic tool to help them relax, relieve physiological stressors and encourage psychological ease. It doesn’t ask me to change my beliefs or negate my beliefs, either.
(I shouldn’t answer this while listening to a Bush press conference - oh, the cognitive dissonance agita! )
Ridicule is the essence of satire, so it sounds like you are rejecting satire in toto. Do you mean to claim that satire has never done any service to anyone? This would mean that, for example, the bulk political cartoons do no service because they satirize people and parties. Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain, two great satirists, did no service with their satirical works.
I don’t accept those conclusions and I doubt that many people would, which means that it can’t be right to say that ridicule necessarily does no service.
This seems to assume a couple of debatable points, in particular that logical arguments are the best or only means for getting people to rethink their ideas or change their minds. In my experience, a person cannot be reasoned out of a position they never reasoned themselves into. Something a bit shocking and unexpected can do a lot to shake them out of their ideological complacency — something satire can be very good at.
Satire isn’t the only way to shock, of course, but none of the other shock tactics are warmly received, either. The posters I publish at Jesus’ General can be rather blasphemous, harsh, shocking, and unpleasant for some viewers, but that’s the point. I’m not using logic, evidence, or critical thinking to get my point across; instead, those images are designed to give people a psychological or emotional slap across the face to force people to confront difficult ideas.
Christians can be lumped into one category for some purposes but not for others. All Christians are theists and believe in the supernatural, for example, but not all are biblical literalists or politically conservative. I’m not sure, however, that any of the differences within Christianity would justify concluding that satire or mocking would be OK with some, but not others.
I think that satire and even mockery is OK. I have some digital images I’ve made that are rude mockery of christian religion. That is, in my opinion, an important point: I respect people only-human beings- but I am not obligated to respect religious doctrines or institutions. Those are the ones I try to ridicule: the doctrines, hoping that the viewer gets shocked and think about it.
Yes, I agree with Ashe: people have a right to be treated with common courtesy, decency and afforded basic human dignity, AS PEOPLE. I try to treat all people the same, as far as my behavior toward them, and like to be treated similarly in return. That includes leaving people alone to believe whatever foolishness they desire … UNTIL they start spouting it off as truth, at which time it is appropriate to challenge the IDEAS being presented, without attacking the person. Granted, some people are inexorably attached to their superstitions and take it quite personally if their ideas are challenged.
Assuming you live in America, or other “free” countries we have the right to say whatever we want. With excussions of things like yelling “fire!” in your local movie theatre or other simular things. When Christians lose their cool over something that is said contrary to their beliefs, we have to remind ourselfs that it’s what should be expected of someone who does not believe in God. Don’t let it bother us. It doesn’t affect or Faith one bit. I think both sides of the agruments should remember why we are debating/discussing it in the 1st place. We want to show others why we believe what we believe. When you get to the point of name calling, or riducule both sides lose the ear of the other side. Sometimes it might be easy to say something hurtful, but the better, higher ground would be to stick to the facts and philosphies of the sides.
Over the past 3 days I have left comments here and I’ve gotten some, and I’ve also responded back with some. I’ve learned that I’m no where near educated enough to battle with the level that most of you are on. I don’r spend perhaps the time you do in research. I just simply have faith.
If I’m right then OK things will be great for me one day in Heaven, if I’m wrong, what have I lost? I’ve tried to be a good father, husband. Lived a life with great friends and I couldn’t be more happy. I have the same result as an atheist.
But what if you are wrong?
I pray that you will not give up the debate for yourself. I don’t know you, nor do I have the right to judge you, this last few days has been fun, a learning experience for me. I have resolved to look into both sides deeper with as fair mind as possible, and then I will decide from their, do I still just rely on faith…
Pascal’s Wager, addressed and refuted multiple times over.
The intellectually honest thing to do would be to retract assertions which you can’t or won’t support.
Hello?
Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Most religion hardly deserves the name. It is the preoccupation of a 14 year old. Standing up to such childish nonsense is a boon for everyone.
John Weldon (Over the past 3 days I have left comments here and I’ve gotten some, and I’ve also responded back with some. I’ve learned that I’m no where near educated enough to battle with the level that most of you are on. I don’t spend perhaps the time you do in research. I just simply have faith.) You are probably more educated than me. Grade 8. But I have a question. If simlpy had faith in any particular thing, why would I need to research?
I just simply have faith. — Comment by John Weldon — February 28, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
How did you decide which ideas you should have faith in?
I come to think about an analogy that I see as a problem here in Europe and very much in Sweden were I live. As you probably know there been a lot of debate about pictures of Muhammed, the muslim prophet, painted as a dog. A few days ago there were a TV-program on one of Sweden’s public service channels with the artist behind the pictures and a Swedish muslim, sort of representing other muslims living here in Sweden. Focus were as usual toward if the pictures were justified when many muslims felt offended by them. The muslim expressed this and were focused on this. It struck me that there were something wrong with this focus. The artist behind the art now lives with a death threat hanging over him and even if he handles this well doesn’t mean other people should take such things easily. The focus on the poor muslim being offended became somewhat disgusting and I came to think about the famous word being said a couple of hundred years earlier in France: ‘I do not agree with what you are saying but I’m willing to offer my life for your right to say it’.
It seems to exist some sort of tabu around religious questions that makes important and fundamental freedoms we often take for granted suddenly less important. When someone is threaten to life for making art that is provoking, the by law granted freedom to speak is in danger. That must be prioritized over the fact that some peoples feelings might be hurt by the pictures. If freedom to speak becomes crippled because of fear for being physically hurt we all know that much more than feelings are at stake. How come this weren’t noticed in this debate?