
I make fun of Christians and other religious people a lot, and have little respect for them because of their profound ignorance about the historicity of their savior, and the historicity of the bible in general, especially when they are faceless strangers, but I realize they are no better or worse than any other grouping of humans and that there are enough subcultures within the big tent that it's unfair to condemn them all with broad generalities. Most of us have at least one area in our lives in which we are ignorant and irrational. In the best case scenario, our pet irrationality is harmless. All too often though, people’s irrationality leads to violence, or bothering other people who don’t share their beliefs, or at the very least, being overly judgmental.
But sometimes my heart goes out to them. Jen from Boston is a decent sort. Writing about the Da Vinci Code she says:
So, I want to picket the picketers. I want to make my own signs that tell the picketers that it’s all going to be ok, and that God loves all people. God loves people who see the DaVinci Code, God loves homosexuals, God loves women who get abortions and God loves abortion Doctors. I want my signs to be bigger than their signs and I want to stand right in front of them, so that all they see is me, and all the world sees is the back of our two signs.
So she is from the “good” wing of Christianity and I like her as a person. Still, in the bigger picture, she is a proselytizer whose goal is to gain adherents, to make people ignorant.
People don’t need picketers in front of the theatre as people are going in; they need people to meet them on their way out. Not to condemn them, but to help them with their questions, and to invite them to fellowship where their questions can be answered.
People don’t need picketers out in front of abortion clinics. No, but they do need to be there for the broken women who are walking out. Where do these shattered lives go? Can the church be the hospital that it should be? Can it be there to help these people put their lives back together and invite them into fellowship?
Hey picketer! Put the megaphone down, fold up your director’s chair and meet me around in the back. Let’s talk to people, not yell at them. Let’s meet people, not accuse them. Let’s welcome people, not scare them.
I don’t mean to condemn Jen. Her motives are good and her approach can genuinely help some people. Although I think we would be better off without that crap as a society, I know that it does help a lot of individuals deal with the problems in their lives, which can certainly be a good thing.
As for gaining adherents, I’m not sure whose way is better. The picketers of hate or the picketers of love. They are probably mutually exclusive. The haters will attract haters and the lovers will attract more morally decent sorts.
But it would be nice if there were a rational lobby who waited outside of churches and other religious places in order to help people overcome their superstitions. I know, I know, that is not going to happen. We have freedom of religion and give those who try to spread their religious beliefs respect, if not silence. Essentially, the proselytizers are telling people that if they do not believe in X religion, then their beliefs are bunk, and we, as a society, are okay with that. But it doesn’t work in the other direction. Standing outside a church and explain to people coming out why their beliefs are bunk would not go over very well.
Do you see how you are also advocating a belief system in your condemnation of theirs? While Christians, or members of other religions have a value system that they prefer, you as well have your own. So by advocating the idea that our society does not need any people groups or subcultures asserting their own discourse of power you are doing the same thing by saying "don't do that."
ReplyDeleteI believe it's impossible to be removed from using our "knowledge" as power against humanity in general, so I do not think there's anyone around it but I figured I'd give you my two cents. I like your blog, I should start one of my own.
(Sorry if this all sounds very Foucault, he's been on my mind lately...)
Well, yes, I am aware that I am advocating beliefs, though it would be an exaggeration to say that I have anything so grand as a belief system.
ReplyDeleteMy belief is that our beliefs should not be in contradiction with facts. And although history has repeatedly shown that it’s not always good advice, I generally believe that our beliefs should not (usually) contradict the best scientific evidence available (though everyone should be encouraged to go out and prove it wrong).
So I’m okay with people believing in Intelligent Design, for example, since there are no facts to disprove it
But I don't think it's good when people believe that 600,000 Jews were slaves in Egypt, that they were led out into the desert by a guy named Moses, that they lived out there for forty years on manna from heaven, and that the supreme ruler of the universe jerked them around like that and gave them several books of mostly insane, tribal laws, from which they can selectively choose to enforce on us. Even leaving the supernatural aspects aside, there is no archeological evidence that any of that happened and a lot of good evidence that it didn’t.
Now if these beliefs in false histories (there are so many more than Exodus) were not root causes of so much harm in the world, I’d be happy to let people have their illusions. But as is, I think we’d all be better off keeping up with the latest scientific and academic knowledge and basing our opinions and actions on that rather than two or three thousand year old tribal best sellers.
That’s not to say that I’m opposed to all religious value systems, Obviously religions contain many fine values and many fine people who practice them. I just don’t think that we need religions based on demonstrably false histories to have values. Many truths, as they say, are self-evident. And the good values are the ones that allow us to live happily as individuals and societies. And sorry to state the obvious, but religious people are not always the paragons of virtue they’d like us to believe.
And I certainly agree with you that some people will use their knowledge as power against humanity even if every single thing they believe is rational. Alas, as a species, we are what we are.
But if I seem to have advocated the idea that society does not need a variety of groups asserting their own discourse of power, it was due to my own sloppy writing rather than any personal belief. I just think that all of those different groups should base their discourse on factual knowledge, or as close to that as possible, rather than superstition. If an all powerful super being exists, it surely knows that people can come to a nearly infinite variety of conclusions from the same set of facts.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by. I’ll have to catch up on my Foucault someday. Unfortunately, he’s just one of those thinkers down there in my gaping hole of ignorance.
True, but I think saying that the Bible claims an entirely scientific historical perspective is a stretch at best and perhaps completely incorrect at worst.
ReplyDeleteMost Christians in academia do not interpret the Bible literally anymore (save those crazy right-wingers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who will also advocate the assassination of world leaders. I wouldn't include them in the camp of "Christ-like" Christians. In fact, they very much disgust me.) Those who have dedicated their lives to studying the historiocity of the Bible are more literary critics than they are archaeologists. Most do not believe that Matthew the disciple wrote the gospel of Matthew but rather a community of "believers" at a later date (sometime after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD) wrote with a specific purpose in mind and they also edited the gospel into a certain chronological order to say something to that community in particular. If the same could be said about the other gospels, than this would account for variation. As with the books of the old testament, those that are even older and are even more hazy in their interpretation, scholars tend to read those in same manner by attemping to place them in their historical and geographical location. In the book of Exodus mentions the people of Israel in slavery & having very hard times this may say more about who the book is being written to than the historical element of it even though it is talking about the past.
I wish I could direct you to more relevant links for this by I'm not very versed in credible online sources for Biblical literary criticism. But maybe this will have been something you hadn't heard before. Anyway.
I have my own blogger blog now, there may be content on it soon but my computer situation is few and far between at the moment. So, cheers for now.