You might be a godbag if…
Published by punkass marc June 25th, 2006 in Godbaggery, Moronic ReligionsOn a previous post, hypocrite troll Jason asserted that calling a religious person a godbag was akin to using the worst racial slurs imaginable. I reminded him that there’s a bit of a difference between hating a “race,” a completely illogical categorization of people by the surface-level qualities with which they are born, and ripping on a club full of people who have chosen to opt into its belief system. Certainly Jason found his jabs at us as liberal, anti-Christian atheist nutjobs to be acceptable, and I think we all expect to absorb the criticism of the institutions and clubs into which we willfully enter.
To help Jason understand what makes a religious person a godbag, I thought I would provide him with a few helpful hints. I figured something in the style of Jeff Foxworthy would be right up this evangelical wingnut’s ass alley.
If you believe in God, a god, or gods, you are not a godbag.
If you would do anything to convince other people to believe in your god/s, you are a godbag.
If openly argue that your god/s is/are the only true god/s and everyone else’s gods are a bunch of phooey, you’re a godbag.
If you attend services intended to pay honor to your god/s you are not a godbag.
If you run formal versions of those services, you are a godbag.
Similarly, if you collect money in the name of or try to make a living off of people’s beliefs in god/s, you’re baggin’ it god-style.
If you’ve ever used someone’s belief in god/s to get them to do what you want, vote the way your want, or pit them against others, there’s godbaggery in them thar hills.
If you’ve ever wanted to go to war to defend your god/s or attack someone else’s, you are the ultimate godbag.
If you don’t really believe in god/s but invoke them for personal gain, you are a stinky godbag.
If you act and speak in a way that directly contradicts the supposed teachings of your god/s and then claim to be doing it in the name of your god/s, by jove, that’s godbaggery.
If you’ve ever used your god/s to shame others into irresponsible behavior, sexually or socially, tu esta el godbaggo.
If you’ve ever blamed women for society’s ills in the name of your god/s, you’re probably one helluva godbag.
If you’ve ever argued against teaching empirical science in favor of some magical belief system, the godbag is strong with you.
If you’ve ever used someone else’s poverty or misfortune as a way to manipulate them into believing in your god/s, you are one with the godbag.
I’m sure there are other indications of a godbag, but hopefully these will help Jason and other trolls out there better understand why we call them godbags.
26 Responses to “You might be a godbag if…”
- 1 Pingback on Jun 29th, 2006 at 9:08 am
- 2 Pingback on Jul 15th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
But (*whine*) what’s religion for, if not for asserting that you’re right and everyone else is wrong ’cause god said so?
And now you’re going to tell me that the Bible is just a book.
How long did it take you to come up with so many ways to say “you might be a godbag”?
About a minute.
Everybody’s got a talent. Clearly, this one has limitless application.
Hey, there are conservative Christian nutjobs, too. I’m an equal opportunity taunter.
Not that you would know that, being in the “nutjob” section yourself.
Sure Jason, all the ones who don’t carry your particular ‘bag’ right?
punkass marc, I *heart* you.
So, if you’re a priest/vicar/rector/reverend etc. then you’re a godbag?
So, if you’re a priest/vicar/rector/reverend etc. then you’re a godbag?
(Sorry if this doubleposts)
Yep, that’s what he’s saying. And therein lies my objection to Punkass Marc’s definitions of godbaggery.
“If you attend services intended to pay honor to your god/s you are not a godbag.
If you run formal versions of those services, you are a godbag.”
Hmm. I smell a hint of cognitive dissonance in the air. Let’s see if I can tease it out with a personal example.
So, my own great-grandfather was a minister and my grandmother is a minister’s daughter. Now, by definition, my minister great-grandfather was a godbag. No way around it. Maybe he was a nice guy, maybe not, doesn’t matter. Whether he sodomized fifteen choir boys a day or personally fed and clothed a million starving Calcuttans (or both); according to Marc’s rules, he was definitely a godbag. Accepted.
But what about my grandmother? She’s a god-loving lady who goes to church every Sunday. She may love a fictional fairy tale character she calls “God” but she also loves her friends and family in a very real way. Furthermore she really tries hard not to proselytize to us poor deluded atheist grandkids she’s got. She confines herself to letting us know that she prays for us every night, and I think she chooses to believe that God will let us into heaven if we’re just nice people– or at the very least that we will somehow manage to see the light before we die. She certainly believes It’s All Part of God’s Plan. A True Believer, but mostly harmless. By the guidelines given above, I don’t think you would consider her a godbag, Marc.
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe you do. Either way, I am in fact willing to happily concede that she IS a godbag. Because I think if the priest is automatically a godbag, then so should be the follower, no matter how much more harmless they may seem.
You took pains to distinguish between brash, in-your-face godbags and the more humble sorts who are quietly suffering true believers. But it’s a such a short slippery slope from one to the other. Loosey-goosey faith-based thinking begets bad logic which begets poor decision-making which begets crazy shit like the Project for the New American Century. (Let’s put it this way: My grandma sure does love her some Bush.)
So are we to favor the simple churchgoer over the fiery evangelical megachurch leader? At least the latter thinks they are standing up and fighting for their convictions. Are we to say that the only good believer is a quiet believer? No, that smacks too much of the rhetoric used to oppress any group. (Uncle Tom was a “good negro” because he wasn’t one to speak up.) Yes, I know the religious ones are not the minority right now, but it sets bad precedent to say that the only people in a group entitled to an opinion are those who choose not to voice it. Or should atheists remain silent in polite company, so as not to be dismissed as “ath-holes” or somesuch?
Yes, I know that WE’RE different from all those godbags. We KNOW that there’s no Omniscient Entity who watches over all of us, let alone cares about little old us one way or another. Maybe we SHOULD be the only ones with a right to speak up loud and proud, because we actually happen to be right. So what if they feel the exact same way in relation to us!
But that way lies futility. Okay, most godbags out there won’t actually listen to a word we might have to say no matter how reasonably we might say it. But that small percentage who might actually be susceptible to suggestion certainly won’t listen if we start habitually calling them godbags, or any other such affectionate nicknames. If someone calls you a cocksucker/coochielicker/[insert favorite oral pejorative here], does it really put you in a mindset to seriously listen to anything they have to say? No, of course not. You just get pissed off.
I’m not saying we should cut “godbag” out of our vocabulary entirely. Inserted at a strategic moment, sometimes a little bit of needling can be good for debate. Especially with a silly neologism, like “godbag” currently is (as opposed to the heavily weighted old stalwarts Jason so helpfully compared it to, i.e. “kike”, “nigger”, etc).
But I think it would be best not to overuse it. Though, technically speaking, I think my grandmother should be considered a godbag, I love her and have no desire to hurt her feelings. I’d rather not cast the godbag net so wide. Why don’t we just save “godbag” for the real assholes?
By the way, I’m just curious about something. I don’t participate in Blog comments very much, you see…
When some nobody off the street– like myself– writes such a long comment, does anybody actually bother to read it? Or did I just engage in an hour or so of mental masturbation?
If so, well, it felt pretty good, thanks for asking.
Yes, we do read it. Glad you mentally masturbated for us.
Yay! You really know how to make a guy feel special.
Quin, I don’t appreciate the Uncle Tom comparisons — that’s a tremendous insult to a whole bunch of people. My preference for personal religious beliefs to be kept personal, which would keep one out of godbag territory, is far, far different that suggesting a person subjugate himself to “masters” at the expense of his race. This is the second poor analogy of religious criticism to racism we’ve had in the last couple days and I don’t take kindly to it. You are either trivializing racism or making religious criticism out to be far more cruel than it is. And either way, it’s irresponsible.
On to the less offensive remarks:
Yes, I know the religious ones are not the minority right now, but it sets bad precedent to say that the only people in a group entitled to an opinion are those who choose not to voice it.
Nowhere do I say that people aren’t entitled to voice their opinions. Hell, even if I call you a godbag, why does that mean you can’t speak up? It just means I also have the right to assert that religious speech furthers an institution of corruption, manipulation, delusion, and much historical harm, and I think supporting that institution sucks a nut. That’s all the term godbag implies, doesn’t it?
To be fair to my post, though, I only invoke godbaggery when you become a _formal_ leader of religious services, collect money in the name of god/s, or make a living off of your god/s. This is because the role of evangelist, in my opinion, always does harm to society. I believe aggressively recruiting folks to participate in a system that rejects empiricism and/or manipulates its followers to support the very people oppressing them pushes us backwards a little every time it works.
Why don’t we just save “godbag” for the real assholes?
Exactly. That’s exactly what I am doing.
While I wish religion would vanish from the Earth, I understand personal spirituality and even communal spirituality. Participating in it does not = godbag in my opinion.
It’s why I don’t include your grandmother on my list, even if you want me to so you can somehow accuse me of shutting her up.
But once a person becomes an active leader in pulling people into religion, I think s/he becomes a force for ill. S/he enables hypocritical godleaders to extend their net and push the subjugation of women, ignorance like abstinence-only education or “intelligent design,” and more. That makes a person an asshole in my book.
Talking about what you believe, even in a way that opens the door to others to join in, is not the same as becoming a formal leader for religious services. To me, it’s all about whether or not you participate in the corrupt institutionalization of religion or not.
If you look closely at my definitions, I think that’s pretty obvious.
Quin, I’ll admit my attention did waver towards the end, until your next post prodded me to read properly.
Marc, I still don’t see how your differentiation between communal spirituality and religion is obvious. Possibly because my experience of religion has been very short on recruitment (and entirely free of ID), and my experience of other people’s spirituality has not.
Andrew,
Fair enough. For me, having been raised Catholic and also having seen a lot of the Protestant machinery at work while growing up, I am all too familiar with the personal feeling of Big Religion. Any time someone works for what amounts to The [Religious] Man, it seems pretty easy to spot. When I talk about people who are career evangelists as I did above, or those who would:
-”do anything to convince other people to believe”
-”act and speak in a way that directly contradicts the supposed teachings of your god/s and then claim to be doing it in the name of your god/s”
-”ever used someone else’s poverty or misfortune as a way to manipulate them into believing in your god/s”
…that’s the institution at work.
On the flip side, I’ve known some people who have a faith and maybe even share it with others but don’t participate in the machine. They do something more original, usually in an intimate setting. While it isn’t for me, I wouldn’t call them godbags.
Maybe I’ve been fortunate to meet some exceptions, but I often find members of the clergy (as long as they are old school mainliners) to be fantastic conversationalists. They are witty, smart, engaging, and have great stories.
Two are my cousins (ELCA Lutheran) , one, who has become a kind of friend, I met at a Christmas party (United Methodist?) and one was an Anglican priest I met while living abroad who served a small English-language congregation. Even though I am an athiest, I do have a nice soprano and really missed my more secular choir when I was abroad. The choir also had a Buddhist, some open homosexuals and openly cohabitating singles and it was great to have a little pizza with some English speakers once a week after rehearsal. No one cared that I didn’t go to communion. (Oh, of course the priest wasn’t in the choir, but his wife was and sometimes he came along for dinner.)
With this unrepresentative sample size of four, I have never had any conversation about faith, about God, about belief. None of the four have ever proselytized. The subject has just never come up. In their private lives, they like to talk about books (the kind I read even), hobbies, liberal politics and travel.
So I suppose I just reiterate the point about not “participat[ing] in the machine.” When I think of a “godbag,” I think of that slick car-salesman guy from Colorado interviewed in that Richard Dawkins documentary that was making the rounds a while ago or one of Pam’s homobigots over at Pandagon. I think many minister to their flock, to the actual people who fill their pews on Sunday, while leaving the rest of us alone.
Hanna,
Another good point, thanks. Maybe the definition of a godbag is “you know one when you see one,” and there are exceptions to my first crack at some definitions, I have no doubt. But I still think a general framework of wariness around clergy types isn’t unwarranted. I’ve encountered 2, one Catholic and one Southern Baptist, who were downright scary in terms of what they were willing to do or say to get you to by into their belief scheme, and one priest, again Catholic, that I thought was pretty nice, actually.
Even so, I am sure there are friendly members of any corrupt organization, and I still hold their membership in the organization against them.
Punkass Marc wrote: “Quin, I don’t appreciate the Uncle Tom comparisons — that’s a tremendous insult to a whole bunch of people.”
Marc, I don’t appreciate being accused of racial insensitivity — that’s a tremendous hyperbole.
The Uncle Tom comparison is not unwarranted. It does not trivialize race to compare religion to race. Both are categories that fundamentally help us to define who we are, and what place we see ourselves as having in the world. Race, spiritual affiliation, social class, gender, sexuality and nationality: in terms of the importance to our lives they each have, they’re more or less equivalent. At least on the same order of magnitude. Race does not trump the others just because of America’s horrible history of black civil rights. Every one of those categories has been responsible for vicious oppressions at various times throughout history.
You: “My preference for personal religious beliefs to be kept personal, which would keep one out of godbag territory, is far, far different that suggesting a person subjugate himself to ‘masters’ at the expense of his race.”
Well that’s not a loaded way of rephrasing it or anything… Look Marc, whether it’s slaves, fundos, proles, femmes, queers, minutemen, or circus freaks, once you resolve to insult any member of any group unless they keep their beliefs to themselves, you’re indulging in an act of oppression. Yes, in this case, trivial– and tossing around word “godbag” certainly isn’t going to ruin any lives– but it’s still worth pointing out.
You: “You are either trivializing racism or making religious criticism out to be far more cruel than it is.” Criticise religion? Fine, I hope you really rock some boats. Call religious people godbags? Okay, maybe sometimes as long as it isn’t ever something really hurtful. Divide them up as “acceptable” if they don’t make waves or “godbags” if they once made the somewhat admirable choice to devote their lifes to spreading their most cherished beliefs? There, it’s getting into shaky territory.
And I’ll leave it there. I actually don’t think we disagree too grandly on very much here. Maybe I’m just splitting hairs. But come on, you accused me of being racially insensitive. I have to stick up for myself. Either that or go take a racial sensitivity workshop.
What do you think, should I go to one anyway? Might be fun.
You are obviously still racially insensitive.
People opt into religion. It’s perfectly acceptable to call into question the values of someone’s club, whether it’s a church or the KKK. You call a KKK leader a racist, I call a church leader a godbag.
People do not opt into race, and more importantly, race does not imply anything about you other than a surface level quality with which you are born. It’s devoid of value, and criticizing someone for it is bigoted. Membership in a church is not devoid of value. In fact, it exists to promote its values, which I have the right to criticize.
So to say that criticizing someone for being a Jesusfreak is the same as criticizing someone for being black is way, way, way, way off. And still insulting.
Not to mention you still ignore the point that calling someone a godbag isn’t the same as trying to block their freedom of speech. It’s just criticizing the values of which they speak. They can talk all they want, though. Are you following me here?
Am I still racially insensitive? Hmm. I think I’ll wait until somebody besides you accuses me of it before I start to become concerned that you might be right.
On the choice issue– you’re correct that religion is a choice, despite the fact that for many people it seems like it isn’t. But look– I wouldn’t call just KKK leaders racists, I’d call them ALL KKK members racists. Again with the weird divisions between leaders and followers. That’s the point I was driving at. If one’s worthy of criticism (or being called a godbag), then so should be the other.
Nowhere, and I mean nowhere did I say that we shouldn’t be able to criticise people for their religion. Again, if you read what I was saying, I was objecting to this automatic free pass for peaceful flock, while pounding away at every minor shepherd no matter how nice they might happen to be.
“So to say that criticizing someone for being a Jesusfreak is the same as criticizing someone for being black is way, way, way, way off. And still insulting.” I didn’t say this. My point was that criticizing only the vocal proponents of Jesusfreakery while patting the nicer ones on the head is essentially splittling them up into “Good Jesusfreaks” and “Bad Jesusfreaks”, with the good ones being labeled so because they don’t make waves, is stupid. Criticise them for the illogic of their beliefs, fine. Don’t criticise them simply because they are vocal about it, which is what you are asserting.
The Uncle Tom comparison is not one I’m going to stand up and spend hours defending– it’s starting to overshadow that main point I was trying to make. But while it’s true that religion is a choice and race isn’t, religion (of the people being oppressed) has been used as a tool of opression just as much as race has in the history of modern man. Are you implying that religious oppression is okay because religion is a choice? That the Jewish relatives I never met because they died in concentration camps should have just renounced their Judaism before anybody came to them with a tattoo gun and a cattle train?
I think I know what you’re going to say next– that I was trying to kill a fly with a racially insenstive sledghammer, bringing Uncle Tom into the mix. If so, I will have to respond to this in about 15 hours, because I can’t put off leaving for work any longer.
(Or maybe I’ve completely swayed you? Somehow I don’t think so…)
Yes, as to the sledgehammer, you did precisely that. You seem to know it yourself at some level, so why keep protecting your offensive overstatement?
Are you implying that religious oppression is okay because religion is a choice?
My criticism of the institution of religion is THAT it is oppressive — that’s inherent in godbaggery. Are you saying I am not allowed to criticize the institution at all? Or just that I can’t use godbag?
My claim is that religion damages society, and I believe the term godbag is a _substantive criticism_ of people who further that harm. Am I not allowed to say that? This is far from an empty slur, though you don’t seem to see the distinction between value debate and oppression.
Don’t criticise them simply because they are vocal about it, which is what you are asserting.
It’s not the vocality, Quin. It’s the aggro recruitment/career/exploitation element of it (formal services, making money, doing _anything_ to get other people on board, and many of my other definitions). More in my post tomorrow morning.
I’m just a non-hypocrite-troll posting to clear the good name of Jasons everywhere.
Damn, but that’s some ancient history. I’m pretty sure that this thread is probably the very first time I ever tried having an internet conversation.
I believe Marc wrote a follow-up post addressing my points in particular. I then wrote to say that I had an unstoppable counterargument, but I was just too busy to post it. Then I stayed away from the blog for six months. Pretty common first foray into commenting, I imagine.