I have a love/hate relationship with religious conversation. On the one hand, I find the topic incredibly interesting, but on the other, I often find the people I end up in debates with know very little about the topic they speak very passionately about. "Blind faith" is quite the perfect term to describe what these particular debaters claim to have.
Awhile back, a Facebook friend had posed this question on his page, "For those of my friends that voted for President Obama, would you still have supported him if he had said he was an atheist?"
The response this particular friend received in his comments section was quite predictable. Not surprisingly, the majority said they would not have felt comfortable supporting (and voting for) a President that didn't have faith in God. The reasoning was usually something to do with religion providing a "moral compass" without which he might make decisions that they would find uncomfortable or not in keeping with their own belief systems.
An interesting spin on what it means to be an atheist President, considering the most religious President we've had in my lifetime (George W. Bush - self-professed born-again Christian) brought our country to not one, but TWO wars, decided that debt didn't matter and wouldn't affect us personally, put a ban on life-saving stem cell research, instituted policies that kept a large minority population from having basic civil rights, etc, etc, etc. Yes, obviously having a strong religious background is a requirement for that moral compass to point due North.
But, I didn't start this blog to talk about W. Bush, or President Obama, for that matter.
The most interesting response out of that comment section was one about "religious persecution" and of course, the always noted "Christian" founding fathers in any debate about the separation of church and state. I wanted to write a blog that not only highlighted her response since it is one us atheists that get into debates come across often, but more importantly, provide you with an understanding of WHY these debates can be so frustrating. Following her comment is my rebuttal. Keep in mind, this was an original thread about President Obama's ability to perform as President if he were an atheist.
I have a portion of her response in quotations, so as not to be confused with anything that might come from my mouth (or hands, haha.)
FB Commentor:
"So this is one of those topics that can be debated all day. I used the Osama example as just that an example. Some of our greatest leaders were of other religions, ie Malcolm X. So it's not about the religion, it's the relationship. I believe in God, and I would want a leader that believes in God. Your beliefs whether people will admit it or not, have an effect on your character, morals, and ideologies.
I agree with u [FB Topic Starter], people have killed in the name of "religion." And, there should always be a separation of church and state. That's what makes the US so great. The govt can't force u to be any certain religion.
But, things that have changed in our history b/c we had people who voted for things, and leaders who had the same ideologies or morals allowed them to pass. Ex. Taking prayer out of school. Before anyone comments, I understand the fact that if u don't believe in God, u may not want to pray in school, well opt out. It takes away liberties for those who do want to pray and believe in God.
Finally, this is a Christian nation. Our whole country was founded on separating ourselves from Catholicsm. But the great part about Christianity is the basis is to "love thy neighbor." So it doesn't matter that ure Buddhist, or Hindu or aeitheist. We can all function and flourish in society and I love and respect u the same.
And as Mr. Gump would say "that is all I have to say about that." :) Good convo, [FB Topic Starter]."
Now, please disregard our friend for all of the spelling errors, as I'm sure they were just typos and not good indicators of intelligence.
Here was my response - I tried to stay brief, keep in mind, this was a comment on a FB friend's status.
DACIA:
[FB Topic Starter], you certainly know how to pick topics to get people to comment! Religion has always been a favorite topic of mine, and I genuinely find Obama so likable that it pains me when people rush to not give him a chance, so I always respond about him. Especially considering the difficult mess(es) he inherited. Add these two topics together and I just can't seem to help myself :)
Just to clarify from the comment above, Catholics ARE Christians too :) And the religion of the U.K. at the time of the American Revolution was specifically called the Church of England which was different from the Catholic church (though not by much). Henry VIII was the monarch who broke the Church of England from the Catholic institution reigned by the Pope, mainly due to his desire to divorce his wife. The Church of England continued to transform under different rulers, and it was James I that gave Christians the King James version of the Bible. So it is important to note that the church we broke from after the American Revolution was a *Christian* church. Also, in the U.S., the churches established in the colonies for the Church of England eventually morphed into what we know as the Episcopal church today. Interestingly, this church - still part of the Anglican communion (and not entirely Catholic or Protestant, sort of a mix, but Christian nonetheless) - formally announced that they believed gay and lesbian people were children of god and deserved the same civil liberties as the rest of us -- and that was back in the 70's. Given the current climate for this oppressed minority in our country, I find that fairly remarkable, especially considering this announcement came over 30 years ago. To my knowledge, (I could be wrong about this fact) they were also one of the first churches to speak out against apartheid and formally apologize for slavery and the Jim Crow laws, but again, another church might have beaten them to the punch, I'm not 100% sure.
As for our 'Founding Fathers', many of them were Deists, not Christians. They believed -- largely in part because they had no other scientific understanding at that time -- that there must have been a creator, but they did not believe "he" interfered with the world after it was created, nor did they believe he answered prayers.
I was in the military for 6 years, and I always wanted a President that didn't search for answers from a God, but searched for answers from gathered intelligence, people from differing points of view, and experts in whatever field the question came from. I would rather have a President who believes that life is precious and finite than have a President that ultimately believes that if hundreds or thousands of troops die, at least they'll be going to a "better place." Or worse, having a President believe that nuclear war has an "upside" since it could be the sign of the Rapture. This is a valid fear of mine, I just want to add, since a very high percentage of Americans believe that the second coming will be in their lifetime. If you understand what this means based on the descriptions of the Bible, you can see why issues such as nuclear proliferation and global warming are alarming for me if a President seeks answers from his faith.
As an atheist, I understandably don't enjoy hearing people say that you need a god to have morals or good values. I believe that each life is equal and precious and I completely understand its brevity, which is why I believe everyone should be able to live their life having equal rights no matter their religion, sexual orientation, gender, race, etc. I only hope that the current trend continues. Obama lifted the ban on stem cell research, thank goodness! And I believe that the GLBT community will soon be enjoying the same civil rights as their peers.
But, we all have our opinions, and I agree, that's what is enjoyable about living in this country.
I of course had to end on a much nicer note than I would normally close with, but again, this was in response to a person on a FB friend's page. I didn't want to be too abrasive.
I'm bringing all of this up because I have been told on more than one occasion that I'm quite "opinionated." I usually get nailed with this tag after I've responded to or started a religious discussion. So I leave you good people with this:
Yes, I AM opinionated about religion and the effects the religious majority have on not just me, but the entire world. All I ask is one thing: if you want respect from me about what you believe and what your opinions are about your faith, the least you could do is actually read the book you defend so damn diligently.
Now, I don't mean reading just certain passages, and I certainly don't mean having priests or pastors read bits and pieces aloud for you every Sunday.
I mean this: sit down. Shut up. Turn off the TV with its Fox News and 700 Club. Dust off the Holy divine-inspired Bible you have collecting dust on a shelf. Open it up, probably for the first time in months or years. And start reading. Don't stop until you've finished cover-to-cover.
If, after you've read the 'Holy Book' in its entirety, you STILL want to have a religious discussion with me, and want to defend its great example of morality, I welcome the debate.
Until then....I'm not listening.
You can't keep defending a book you've never actually read.
And that's an opinion worth fighting for.
No comments:
Post a Comment