“Cathedral,” live, by Crosby, Stills and Nash. I first heard it as a little girl–my dad loved this song. It seems appropos.
As I said in Part One, while I enjoyed the movie, I didn’t find that it rocked my world in a significant way for the most part. However, there were two statements that Bill Maher made, both near the end of the movie, that did perk up my “thought-inducing” antennae.
ONLY MILD SPOILERS BELOW THE FOLD.
The first came after several conversations he had with various Muslims; after he pointed out to each of them that the Quran is quite supportive in many places of treating nonbelievers with hatred and violence, even unto death, he got responses ranging from “No it doesn’t!” to “Well, yes it does but that’s only because of the time in which it was written.” All of them chorused at the end—”It’s all the politics! Not the religion!” And Bill said:
I just don’t buy it that these guys are in this state of denial. I think they’re just in a state of denial to an outsider. They will not admit anything is wrong with their culture to an outsider. (emphasis mine)
This struck me because of a recent (offline) conversation I had with a men’s rights activist–I was telling him that really, I didn’t find it much to the point to have conversations about gender issues with MRAs, because they simply weren’t going to listen to me from the get-go. It wouldn’t matter if the idea or information I was trying to impart was a solid and verifiable as the laws of thermodynamics; because I was The Enemy, a feminist, their minds would be completely walled off. Not just because of general enmity, but because my reasons for speaking must always be suspect–my purpose could only be, in their minds, to disrupt and destroy their movement–their culture. So even if something I said sounded emininently true and reasonable, it must be leading to Danger Will Robinson Danger! (An image of covered wagons circling together out on the prairie as the Injun hordes rush towards them comes to mind.)
He agreed that yes, this was a very real dynamic–and yes, it is also one that self-identifying feminists as a group also practice, as I know from personal experience being one in a group. While we may argue among ourselves, we take it as a general premise that the dissenter, since he or she is a feminist, has our group’s good in mind, no matter how disagreeable what he or she has to say is. This allows us to actually listen to it, consider it, and if it stands up to much rigorous testing and debate, sometimes even adopt it for our own. But the same dissenting idea, proposed by an MRA, would rarely get the same type and degree of consideration. And this is quite global among any group, especially one held together by some type of belief system, whether political, philosophical, or religious.
I have no idea how to solve this problem. I’m loathe to say that any problem is genuinely unsolvable, but this one is a real doozy. The fact is, many outsiders who negatively question a group do, indeed, dislike the group and would be happy to see it disbanded or destroyed. How is the group supposed to be able to tell what an outsider’s motives truly are? In the blogosphere, we even have a name for an outsider who “pretends” genuine interest and a desire to really communicate to disguise unpleasant ulterior motives–a “concern troll.”
The second was part of Maher’s final wrap-up monologue:
This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious, really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. (emphasis mine.)
The first part, the call to, er, atheist militancy, is not new to me–I’m fairly sure I got my first dose of it via Christopher Hitchens but I’ve read many other present and past atheist and freethinking writers on the subject since. The second part, though, about the self-identified moderately religious–that did get me thinking.
My grandmother was religious. By this I mean that she unquestioningly believed in God, basically the Christian God and more specifically, the Southern Baptist Protestant Christian God, though she never in my hearing condemned a member of any other denomination specifically or other religion generally. She was a big believer in God’s love, forgiveness, lack of judgement, etc.–really, what her religion was to her was a way of expressing her belief in man’s love and caring for his fellow man, in the healthiest of human community behavior, in the ideal of physical violence being abhorrent in nearly every circumstance. (I’d say “every circumstance,” but I’m pretty sure she thought it was permissible to defend oneself from direct and immediate physical assault. She definitely thought it was to defend one’s children–my mom used to tell me a funny story about a couple of teenagers that were beating up on her and her siblings one Halloween and how my grandma chased them off with a broom.)
Did my grandma have a responsibility to discard her religion because it was irrational? Could she have? It was so deeply an ingrained part of her–but of course she could have; people ever since the beginning of any kind of widespread literacy in any decent-sized population have managed to do so. But I loved my grandmother, and she was such a good person–can I really believe her to have been propagating harm, simply because it was easier for her to practice her kindness and generosity under the guise of those tenets rather than having to contemplate them being self-originating? Can I really believe her to have been propagating harm simply because, during the most difficult times of her life, it was unimaginably comforting and inspiring for her to feel that she was loved and supported by an all-powerful being? It’s possible she might not have survived those times with her psyche fully intact if she could not have had that crutch–am I right to demand that she, and all the others like her, reject it anyway because of the overall harm the meme of “religion” has caused and is still causing mankind?
On the most personal of levels, there were significant periods of time during my adolescence and adulthood years when my grandma was the only member of my biological family who was willing to even make an effort to find out how I was doing from time to time, and I know how she felt about me–a few months before she died, she called me up to tell me that she was, indeed, dying–and also to tell me that I was the one person in the world who had always meant more to her than any other and that she thought that my existence justified her own–I meant that much to her. And she meant all that and more to me, as well–but she was irrational, and she was validating the terrible harm that religion has and is still inflicting on humanity as a whole. Should I have wounded her so deeply emotionally by insisting she give it up, and if she had refused (which I’m pretty sure she would’ve), should I have done what I would normally do with someone who I believed without a doubt was pursuing an ideology that was both generally and personally terribly harmful to myself particularly and everyone in general–should I have ostracized her? I must, if I truly believe what Bill Maher said about the “moderately religious.” And the fact is, I do agree with him completely. But I doubt I would ever have acted on it with my grandma.
And that is one reason why the moderately religious are very unlikely to ever be forced to face what they are doing in any great numbers. Too many of them are wonderful, lovable people to too many atheists–too many of them are family. This would be another problem that, while I dislike calling any problem unsolvable, I am unsure of what the solution might possibly be.
[...] « Color Me Completely Unsurprised Watching “Religulous” Over The Holidays: Part Two [...]
I was baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic and stopped going to church just about the beginning of my sophomore year of college (am now a super-senior). I was decidedly the Moderately Religious, and I completely agree with your sentiments regarding your grandmother. I have grandparents who believe and who are completely harmless, but really it doesn’t worry me. I still look forward to the downfall of religion with hope and expectation.
Grandparents are, by nature of the job, closer to life’s expected end than the rest of us, and religion was a fairly big part of their generation. The generation afterwards, let’s call them yuppies, seems to be a little less fervent, and my generation a little bet less so as well. I have no problem whatsoever saying nothing regarding my grandmother’s faith, as it does comfort her. I would much rather spend my efforts in talks with my peers debating this “God” fellow and why we don’t need him or her, for one simple reason – most of my peers have yet to have children.
I was raised catholic, but any children that I get to make such a choice for will not be. I’m doing my part to end religion by educating any kids I might someday have about it, but influencing them against the dogmatic belief structure it presents, and that is what needs to happen the most, is that the sunday-church-going crowd who are mildly into it realize that their kids are the battleground in the war of the sane versus the brainwashed. Grannies have already made up their minds, we need to influence the new minds far more than the old.
TRH
I don’t think the term ‘atheist militancy’ is a very good one. It has negative connotations I don’t agree with, sure, but moreover Maher isn’t necessarily calling on the unchurched to be like him and attempt to attack religions. What he’s suggesting is that we simply stand up and be counted for who we are – “We’re here, we’re not religious, get used to it.”
A lot of the evils that religion generates are permissible only by people who assume that pretty much everyone is also religious. A decent chunk of infringements to religious liberty mightn’t take place if people knew just how many toes they were stepping on. Maher is asking for a consciousness-raising activity.
And, in concrete terms, in the case of your grandmother: no, you needn’t have tried to un-convert her on her deathbed. That would be unthinkable, and I’m not really sure how you got that from Maher’s quote. He never suggest ostracizing religious people out of your life. What he is asking is that the religious stop pretending that religion is a 100% silver lining with no dark cloud attached. And discarding religion is not the sole sober response to that realization. Christians (although this applies to all religions) ought to:
1. Admit, both to themselves and to others that religion, and especially their own religion, is not a panacea, and not fit for everyone. This means accepting non-belief as legitimate.
2. Realize that the good that they derive from religion is not 100% a force for good. Now, most would agree with that, as long as you don’t get into the dirty details about the bad side of religion; as long as you don’t start pointing out examples of the ill effects of religion. That is precisely the problem! That reluctance of the religious to face up to the costs, and to name them.
3. Once accepting that religion has its costs, work to maximize the religious benefit/religious cost ratio that they’re getting.
And Maher is saying that the religious don’t need to do #2 so long as they can convince themselves that there really aren’t too many atheists/agnostics/unchurched around. So announce your presence.
What Maher is asking for is similar to driving a car. My car is a very useful tool; it can bring me places quickly, and carry a lot of stuff so I don’t have to. But I recognize that driving it comes with environmental and social (Saudi regime support, for example) costs – costs which are difficult for me to see, but definitely pernicious. And therefore it is my responsibility to seek to maximize my MPG and minimize my car’s emissions.
Similarly, religion can be a great tool for comforting the afflicted. But the religious should recognize that the same institution which gives them comfort and strength has its own form of damaging ‘emissions’, and while they don’t have to give up their shiny religion tool, they have a responsibility to exchange their SUV for a low-emission model.
I disagree; I think that Maher is pushing for “atheist militancy.” I don’t mean to imply that I think he’s pushing for a violent revolution, though–from other things he said throughout the course of the movie I’m pretty sure he is uncategorically opposed to that. I think he is strongly encouraging the nonreligious to get in the faces of the religious, though–not screaming and shouting, but challenging whenever it comes up. And I don’t disagree, but it’s seriously difficult to do when it’s, say, your grandma. But it’d still be the right thing to do.
Just because someone is good doesn’t mean they’re not deeply flawed. And just because someone is deeply flawed doesn’t mean that it’s possible for them to rid themselves of the deep flaw. The fact that criticisms of religion hurts the feelings of sweet little grandmothers is no reason to hold back, especially since one of the primary functions of religion is to oppress women….with women’s cooperation.
“1. Admit, both to themselves and to others that religion, and especially their own religion, is not a panacea, and not fit for everyone. This means accepting non-belief as legitimate.
2. Realize that the good that they derive from religion is not 100% a force for good. Now, most would agree with that, as long as you don’t get into the dirty details about the bad side of religion; as long as you don’t start pointing out examples of the ill effects of religion. That is precisely the problem! That reluctance of the religious to face up to the costs, and to name them.
3. Once accepting that religion has its costs, work to maximize the religious benefit/religious cost ratio that they’re getting.”
They won’t. Would somebody at, say, Coca-Cola admit that perhaps Pepsi is better for some? They will certainly say that there are people in the world who prefer Pepsi to Coke, but their message is that everybody should drink Coke products.
Same with religion – spread the message, because the salvation WE can deliver is legitimate, others’ is not. It is, ultimately, competition.
And Amanda – you are insane. You are batshit raving nuts. That’s downright offensive that you would seek to hurt a harmless person’s feelings just so you can push forward your own goals which you only HOPE will bring about a better world. As much as I witness some religious folks doing horrific things, bombing children and enslaving the masses, I also see it bringing hope and joy to millions by giving them something to hope for. It’s methods are far from perfect, but I think it does bear at least ATTEMPTING to fix the individual problems before we eradicate it.
TRH
Dude, she didn’t say it was her personal goal in life to hurt little ol’ grannies.
Attempting to fix the problems with religion involves, like, naming them, right? Which isn’t going to go over well in all circles, or with all people—even some very nice people will feel hurt, because identity is funny like that.
Besides which, grandmothers, sweet as they are, are not fragile flowers with no fortitude or power whatsoever. As Amanda points out, they often participate in the perpetuation of familial-institutional oppression. Challenging that oppression at its roots doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
“…bringing hope and joy to millions by giving them something to hope for.” Well, yes, except that it’s a false hope, based on lies; and in order to maintain this false hope, proponents of these religions oppress millions, wage wars, and slaughter actual people (not mythical ones). Right now some of them are also inserting themselves into the U.S. educational system and attempting to corrupt our ability to teach science and critical thinking to our nation’s future workforce.
Is that okay, so long as they don’t have to grow up and face facts? I’m thinking not.