On the Soapbox

A friend directed my attention towards a column in Newsweek by a rabbi asking "Why do nonbelievers seem to be threatened by the idea of God?"

I think that the author, Rabbi Gellman, answers his question with this passage:

Perhaps their atheism was the result of [...] an angry degrading sermon, or [...] an unfeeling castigation of lifestyle choices or perhaps something even worse. I would ask for forgiveness from the angry atheists who write to me if I thought it would help.

I think that what he has failed to grasp is the pervasiveness with which the wrongs described above applies to our society. His perspective seems to suggest that this is something that applies to only a handful of atheists, but I do not think he understands just how broad a brush those words represent, especially when we consider the legislative effects of religion. But he anticipates this argument and follows with this:

Religion must remain an audacious, daring and, yes, uncomfortable assault on our desires to do what we want when we want to do it. All religions must teach a way to discipline our animal urges, to overcome racism and materialism, selfishness and arrogance and the sinful oppression of the most vulnerable and the most innocent among us.

Herein lies the root of our problems. Most religious people that I have met hold the conceit that religion (either in general or their own particular brand, depending on how liberal they are) holds a monopoly on morality and is what keeps us from acting like barbarians. It is interesting, though, that the author also writes "I don't think they need to be religious to be good, kind and charitable people," which stands in stark contradiction to his passage above. Whatever the case, the fact that we are a social animal and that we are more or less forced to interact with people dictates morality. This is why, despite vast disparities in cultural and religious history, societies all around the world have generally had similar distastes for things like stealing and homicide. The rule of "do unto others as you would have them do to you" is universal and natural and not exclusive to religion. A rejection of religion does not mean that we will dovetail straight into racism or succumb to our animal urges,* and it is because of this universality that atheists do not dispute rules against theft or battery--not because we believe in the value of religion, but because we are human. The problems with the belief that religion holds the "right" keys to morality manifest themselves when we move away from these simple areas and delve into controversy: how we eat, how we conduct ourselves privately, how we mate, how we discover the world, etc. Yet, the author avoids all controversial topics when expounding on the merits of religion. How very convenient.

The anger of atheists is really the anger of libertarianism. "Victimless crimes" is a label that libertarians are fond of using. Why should people care about what two consenting adults do with one another? Some states still carry anti-sodomy laws. Why should people care about how two or more consenting adults wish to legally contractually incorporate and label themselves (i.e., non-hetero marriage and poly-marriage). Why should people care what others proclaim to be the truth (e.g., Galileo). Why should people care what people eat or how people dress? Why are businesses forbidden to do certain things on Sundays? The list goes on, and if you look closely at the libertarian hit-list of laws that deal with victimless situations, you will see that the vast majority of them are rooted in religion in some way. The problem with these sorts of laws and societal rules is that they serve solely as a way to exert control over people. They do not protect people from homicide or theft; they oppress. Religious people take great offense at the notion that their beliefs are oppressive, but there is really no better way to put it, and as we all know, oppression is a very rich source of anger. Yet, when religious rhetoric decries the dangers and evils of "godlessness", they divert the discourse by evoking the imagery of victims and ignore the fact that we differ only on victimless issues.

Although there are a few atheists who would love to see the elimination of religion, most atheists do not hold such outlandish views. If those who are religious will concede that they do not hold a monopoly on morality and if those who are religious stop trying to impose the rules of their religion on others (want to impose all sorts of rules on yourself? by all means, go right on ahead!--just stop when we get to the rules of society), then the vast majority of angry atheists would suddenly become much more amiable. Indeed, my anger as an atheist is limited only to those who support the imposing of their values on others.

During the Cold War, ordinary Soviet citizens were genuinely convinced that Americans were bent on their destruction and vice-versa. Likewise, many religious people seem to believe that atheists with their well of anger wish to destroy their way of life. The religious right likes to paint our self-defense as a sort of attack, but there is a huge difference between forbidding Timmy from praying in school (the religious right's version of ACLU goals) and forbidding Timmy from joining half the class in openly praying in such a way that pressures others into doing so (true ACLU goals; this protects private prayer and also extracurricular prayer groups). We simply wish to preserve our way of life, and our desire to break into a church and dictate what people can believe in is about as strong as our desire for Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson to tell us what we can do with our own lives. On that note, perhaps the religious right would do well to re-think the value of imposing certain societal rules in the context of "do unto others as you would have them do to you."

________________
* It should be noted, however, that there are a number of animal species that exhibit elaborate social structures, norms, and regulations.