For crimes against the state
11 Aug 2011 2 Comments
in Personal, Thinking aloud Tags: human beans, religion
I apologise.
I apologise for something a fellow pointed out to me a few days ago. He, what I (may wrongly) assume to be a devout atheist, expressed his views that religion should not be a part of the public sphere. He accused “people” — that is, no-one in particular, but, by extension, everyone — of “making everything about religion.”
I try not to reveal the fact that I am what is called “religious”, mostly because I am afraid and weary of the reactions I am and yet will never be used to. I am tired of being persecuted and judged for things I have not done nor will have any part in. The term “religious” is so ambiguous that I, somewhat tragically, always hasten to explain — I do not follow the Bible on every single word, I can still support human rights and remain religious, I do not always condone of the church, I can believe in evolution and believe in God, and so on. I often only reveal this shameful trait of mine when people have known me for a while for the rational, thoughtful person I am, in the hopes that I won’t scare them away. And still, they always appear supremely surprised. I do not like to reveal my religious inclinations to my peers, for I am afraid it loses me quite a bit of respect.
I most certainly do not attempt to force my values and my beliefs on everyone, though I may grudgingly discuss them. I have often painstakingly tried to explain to some people that religion isn’t merely the belief in some supreme Creator and in life after death, but about how and why we live now — why and how I live now. I am often dismissed, for if the church is wrong in so many fundamental aspects of science and human freedom, what do the other things it does matter? If the church is causing such trouble in interfering with basic things like education, if it has caused unrest and terror throughout history (you would be surprised about how many people still refer to this argument; because everything can be judged by its history), there can certainly be no good to it, right?
I mentioned before that I do not always condone of the church. I don’t deny that there are members of “the church” who may appear deluded (however, I don’t claim that they are), and who are certainly more than glad to try to scare you into agreeing, or persecute you for disagreeing with them by any means in their disposal. The crucial distinction here is that they are people, and responsible for their actions — too often a principle is blamed for what is essentially human behavior. We don’t want to take responsibility for our own actions as a collectivity, so we find a scapegoat and pin the blame on it.
Here, the blame should be pinned on two-sided ignorance than anything; on the friction and outright, knee-jerk hate between the broad groups of believers and nonbelievers. I would beg of all of you to have patience and regard with love any and all people you meet, regardless of sex, race and religion if I had the courage for it. I would point out that individuals deserve to be judged as individuals for their own actions, and not for the label they can be filed under. And yet, I would have to hesitantly venture to claim that not even a broad label with the exclusion of sane individuals deserves so much hatred and scorn.
Still, perhaps there is some blame for me as well, for the accusation of the fellow mentioned at the start of this post wasn’t unfounded. I apologise, for I do make everything about “religion.” I apologise, because on some level, I realise that I would perhaps not have survived some of the hardest times of my life without faith. I apologise, for every day, I find joy and beauty in my life because of my religion. I apologise, for my religion is such a fundamental part of myself and my being that I cannot not make everything about it.
I apologise, for I am sane, rational and independent, and yet, I believe in God. I apologise that, even for the uses of our society, I cannot separate one from another.
Nov 03, 2011 @ 11:40:20
(Is really late to the party, here.)
I agree that it is really annoying when people say “religion” and mean “Christianity” or “Christianity” and mean “religion”. I’m an atheist, and every time I speak to someone about religion, I’ve taken to making it really, really clear whether I mean their religion, or ALL religion when I say something contrary. There are some points about religion that apply to all, and some to only a few.
Personally, I’m going to agree that religion has too much of a place in the public sphere — but I’m going to quote the French revolutionaries of 1789 as my reason why: “… liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no-one else”. I would not have ANY problem with people’s religious beliefs (I’m far too liberal to say: “I disagree with you! Therefore you are stupid!” I’ll leave that to Dawkins) if they weren’t continually used as a vehicle to spread not messages of love and tolerance, but to promote agendas of homophobia, anti-abortion protests, and so on. Religion should also never play a part in politics — not at an important, federal level, that should always be at an intellectual level, not an emotional or spiritual level. “I disagree because I am an atheist” and “I disagree because I follow such and such religion” should be two statements which should hold equal weight in politics: that is to say, none.
I think I’m getting off-topic.
Anyway, I’m an atheist and I’m all for freedom of religion, even though I, personally, don’t believe in it; but, I can support freedom of religion and still have serious issues with its place in society and the things that are done in its name.
Aug 11, 2011 @ 12:01:10
You can’t separate religion and small-p politics. The two are very different from church and state, which should be separate, yet people can’t seem to grasp that.
No need to apologize to me, at least. I’m another sane, rational, religious person (though I’m not any stripe of Christian, at all, and I really wish atheists would stop saying “religious” when they mean “Christian”).
I find that some atheists should probably re-title themselves “anti-Christians” as they seem to be on a crusade against Christianity, and in the process conflate Christianity with every other religion out there — of which there are millions, and they’re all different.
Anyway. Good post.