Poop Shute

A reply

Meg, of course you are welcome to comment. I appreciate dialogue, especially with those I disagree with. You know that. How else can we learn anything from each other?

Firstly, the unfortunate fact is that Mr Adams and Mr Dawkins don't need to assume anything, it's just a fact that this is how the majority of religious people react. If you don't, then that is great. One of my good friends, John Roland, doesn't either, but neither of you are representative of the majority. You two enjoy a deep conversation and a spirited debate, and I enjoy that about you both. But you two are exceptions. You are not the rule.

You mentioned questioning your faith as a counterexample, but a religious person questioning and/or discussing it with other religious people is not quite what Douglas Adams was talking about. Contemplative conversations with yourself, and/or with like-minded people is not at all akin to an atheist outright telling you that he sees your belief as flat wrong. That is more the kind of thing he's talking about.

I can talk at you all day about how I think Barack Obama's proposed healthcare plan is idiotic and could never work and nobody would bat an eyelash. They might disagree with the opinion, but nobody would take issue that I brought it up. BUT if I were to tell a Catholic just how insane the idea of transubstantiation is, suddenly I'm insensitive. Suddenly, I've crossed some invisible boundary.

As the man said, this is the way it is simply because we have all allowed it to be so. I have even lived my life this way. Yeah, even me. I'm the guy who has written many a scathing post tearing down "logical" arguments about faith, but I have never really said anything about my own actual feelings before on this blog. I will show someone the holes in their argument when they try to present one, but I've always said if you just tell me it feels right, I can't argue with that. I will just shrug. Up until now that is where I would leave it.

That shrug, and lack of further pursuit of discussion should be recognized as a marked sign of my unwillingness to continue to try to have a rational discussion on a topic that is only rooted in emotion. It can't be done, and there is no point in trying. At this point in my life I have heard every argument possible in defense of religion, and not one of them stands up to thoughtful scrutiny. Not one. I can keep spouting off the same counter-arguments till I'm blue in the face, but I only get one of two responses that way:

1) The religious person in question gets irate, defensive, alienated, etc.
2) The religious person smiles condescendingly, and tells me I just don't understand.

Either response is not rewarding for anybody involved. That second one makes me laugh my ass off, by the way. If one were on a debate team, debating ANY topic, would that fly as your closing argument? I don't see that getting very far. It actually says nothing at all and convinces nobody of anything.

I'm going to leave this now, as it is late and I'm tired. But here is a disturbing quote from George Bush senior to give a little evidence of the intolerance Douglas Adams was discussing, and will lead me into tomorrow's post:

"No, i don't know that atheists should be considered citizens. Nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

More tomorrow about "One Nation Under God."

COMMENTS:

You mean like how the Catholic Church spearheaded the movement to add "under god" in the 1950's as a reaction to communism? Vega 04.24.08 - 1:10 pm

Go Vega go! Guillermo 04.24.08 - 1:30 pm

Well, yes. Thanks for spoiling the surprise. There's more too, but that's for tomorrow. Joey 04.24.08 - 7:05 pm

ew. George Bush Senior...what a lousy excuse for a Christian. What I should have said in my first comment (and thanks for not pointing out that the obvious flaw in the "painting with a broad brush" argument is that I was, in fact, painting with a broad brush...) is this: More than anything else the practices mentioned here - "Your religious pracitice of cutting up a cow a certain way or not turning off lightbulbs on Saturdays to please God" - are cultural things. So when you say: "I find your refusal to turn off a lightbulb on Saturday irrational" you're more than insulting a persons religion, you have now wandered in the territory of insulting their culture and if someone told you that Italians were rude because they always talked loud, you'd rush to defend them. Furthering that, I don't know if people WOULDN'T get offended if you called their political views or economic views irrational. In fact, I know that they do, because when I tell anti-choicers that they are irrational for wanting to legislate what I do with my body, or gun nuts that they are irrational for wanting AK-47's on the streets they get all huffy and defensive. (cont.) Meg 04.26.08 - 3:17 am

SO, while I understand the argument, and to a certain extent agree with the the idea of not making a "sacred cow" (if you will, wink wink) out of religion I don't know if the argument is worded in a way that would convince me of anything. What's wrong with wanting to keep something in our lives sacred? Maybe it's my idea of religion, maybe it's your idea of family, having something that you'll defend passionately is admirable... but of course, more later and probably more thought out on my journal. Meg 04.26.08 - 3:20 am

I don't think Adams nor I ever said that someone wouldn't be offended by an attack on their political beliefs. How an individual reacts to a one-on-one argument is, of course, different from case to case. The point is that if you were to argue with somebody about taxes, or drugs, or abortion, even if THEY were offended, by and large, the majority of society wouldn't tell you that you crossed some kind of a line by openly disagreeing with someone's politics. In fact, that dialogue is the driving spirit behind democracy. We revel in that freedom here in America. Adams' point, and mine in this dialogue is that with religion, we don't seem to enjoy that same luxury. Interesting take on culture, by the way. Though I would say cultural ticks that are rooted in religion are still religion. And the Italians analogy doesn't really fly here. The observation that they are all loud and rude would not only be use of a broad stereotype which isn't exactly accurate (though my own family are pretty damn loud and rude ) but it would be an insult to their physical ticks, not any kind of dogma or belief or ritual. And obviously, if you were Christian the idea of having things classified as "sacred" would make sense to you. I can't ask YOU to not consider these things sacred any more than I can ask you to stop believing. What I think Adams was getting at was in this country and in this time, those of us who do NOT believe are also expected to observe these things as sacred. Wouldn't you say that violates MY own right to freedom of religion? It directly stifles my desire to disregard these things as distinctly NOT sacred at all. It's repressive to those of us who disagree with you. The core of this issue is, religious people want the sacred to be sacred, and non-religious people just plain don't care. Or, rather, we don't WANT to care, but the religious people impose on us that we should care. That is, of course, unresolvable, but in the meantime, I am not going to repress my own lack of belief because somebody else does believe. Is that clearer now? And I STILL haven't gotten to "One Nation Under God" yet. Maybe tomorrow, I like this dialogue too much to bump it down yet. Joey 04.28.08 - 4:28 am

I just thought of a personal anecdote to further illustrate my point. (names changed to avoid pointing any kind of finger) On an acting gig once I met a guy named Ray. Ray was a couple generations older than me, but we got along great. He was a friendly enough guy. I liked him. Once in a while, when I am frustrated, or injured, shocked, etc I tend to exclaim things like "Godd@mit, or "Jesus Christ!" To somebody like me, these phrases have no other meaning other than I am frustrated, injured, shocked, etc. They are not sacred to me, and I have no problem saying them. Whenever one of these phrases would pop out my mouth, which is pretty often, Ray would shout at me "Joey, watch!" or something like that, and give me a stern look like he was my Dad. At the time, I would grimace and apologize for crossing some kind of line. But why? Why did I behave that way? Why should I behave that way? These phrases are just part of my own personal vocabulary, and what harm does it do Ray? Does it make him sinful? No. Does it somehow inflict damage on him, his beliefs, or somehow on God himself? Nope. But because of this unspoken agreement that Adams discusses, I bowed down and apologized and allowed Ray's "sacred" to be my sacred too. And that is what I won't do for anybody anymore. I won't make apologies for my own beliefs. You don't, and Ray doesn't, and nobody expects you too. So, just don't expect me to either. And don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying I'm giving myself free license to go around making hostile verbal attacks at people either. I just won't walk on eggshells that aren't my eggshells. That is all. Joey 04.28.08 - 4:41 am

I don't bite. There seems to be plenty of discussion and derision and celebration and what have you of religion in this country. I just don't think the argument holds water, if religion is considered above reproach there would be no discussion of it, because that would be opening it up to criticism. AND your ability to say "Oh Christ on a cracker" with freedom in most circles wouldn't exist. Certainly people discuss religion more seriously and intensely than they would politics, but again I think that's because a lot of it speaks to culture (and you're right, the Italian analogy was shoddy). I guess in a nutshell what I'm trying to say is: The default mindset in this country is not caring about religion. Just because our nutjob President and his wackadoo religious right cronies talk out their asses all the time, I think that people in general could care less if you go around eating steak at a Hindu wedding. And more specifically (since we all know that we're rolling our eyes at Chritianity up in this piece) they could care less if you say that all Christians are dangerous sheep who believe in an invisible bearded man who grants all their wishes. right, I think I have managed to cloud the issue very well, misdirect you approprieately, "these are not the topics you are looking for", thegrateful secret society of Christians shakes me by the hand. Meg 04.28.08 - 5:41 pm

HAHA. This is fun. I love a spirited debate. It's been too long since I provoked one on here. That said, moving on... Joey 04.28.08 - 6:26 pm

indeed. Meg 04.28.08 - 11:13 pm