Over at The Friendly Atheist has sent two observers to the Americans For Truth About Homosexuality Anti-Gay-Rights Academy (the AFTAH-AGRA, I suppose). Let me summarize: these people believe that homosexuals are trying to rape your children and destroy the world and want to stop this. Yes, very shocking, but let’s look at this bit from Maria:
The fatal flaw in [AFTAH‘s] arguments was the necessary requirement of the belief in a Judeo-Christian conception of God and an acceptance of the Bible as wholly true. … Until we can come to a consensus on what “truth” and “evidence” should be defined as, this argument is never going to be resolved. I don’t hold out much hope that it will be.
Look: that is not their fatal flaw. Their fatal flaw is that they’re hateful. The arguments they’re spewing to further their agenda are hateful, fearmongering manipulation used to maintain oppressive systems. Their fatal flaw isn’t incorrect, it’s that they’re wrong.
Christianity doesn’t compel you to believe that homosexuality is wrong, let alone dangerous. If Christianity weren’t around, these folks would find another way to prop up the patriarchy. They would swap out the cornerstone with another, similarly-shaped brick without a moment’s hesitation, and nothing but the words would change. On the flip side, there are plenty of Christians—though, I’ll agree, fewer—who fully support the radical queer agenda.
I think this cuts to the root of why I, at least, find atheists irritating—they see that Christianity is incorrect, and assume that’s the problem. As when we turn on the worldwide DeReligionizer Ray tomorrow, there will be no more social injustice!
Which is, I think, not quite what would happen. People will realize that there’s no more money or power in the religious oppression game, and they will move on to codify new structures to oppress people with, in remarkably similar ways.
The Catholic Church has lots and lots and lots and lots of problems. Some of those problems are epistemological, and they are not, should not, must not, be the top priority.
AFTAH has some serious problems, but the fact that they’re incorrect about this or that inconsequential thing isn’t the big one. Their biggest problem is that they’re wrong.
It’s often surprised me how many people, who believe (often quite reasonably) in idea “X”, then go on to assume that if “X” was universally implemented there would be no more injustice or oppression. “X” removes something I perceive as oppressive, therefore everything will be lovely come the glorious day of “X”.
I am functionally atheist, and I interpreted the part that you quoted completely differently and take issue with how you characterize atheists in general here. Maybe I’m not understanding you right.
The point that I took away from that was not so much that Christianity is incorrect (though I assume an atheist does think that of course), but that the speakers’ arguments were essentially religious ones, and you cant science what god did or didn’t say. You can argue theology, but that’s for religious folks to sort out amongst yourselves. “God said so” is a non starter of a position for atheists, where “Gay people eat babies” is at least a question you can research and say, “Nuh uh, you guys are lying!” But what are we going to say to Peter LaBarbera that would change his mind about gay people? Nothing, because he’s not going to accept anything that contradicts what he believes God said. I think that makes LaBarbera a bad person also, but I think it’s worth investigating exactly what it is AFTAH believes, where those beliefs come from and if they can be reached out to. The answer is no on that last one.
But also, the reason that bigotry is immoral *is* that it’s incorrect. The truth is that people are individuals and thus should be treated equally, but if that were not the case, like if we were in a make believe universe where all gay people *did* eat babies, well, I would stand against equality for them, being firmly against baby eating myself. But that’s not the case, that never will be the case, so everyone is born deserving a fair shake.
Also, I have never known any atheist who believes that getting rid of religion would eliminate social injustice. Sure, a lot might believe that it would be a net good and even a, um, miracle, but the fact that there are bigoted atheists shoots holes in that argument. The bad parts of religion are just a reflection of the bad parts of our society and human nature, so unless that ray also blots out our collective dark heart hatred will continue.
What I was trying to hit, and I think I missed it, was that bigotry neither depends on nor responds to logic or evidence. You don’t get to where AFTAH or NOM are because you think Romans 1:26 is reallyreally important, you get there because you’re a bigot, and you will grasp at absolutely anything you can to support that bigotry. It’s a thing Fred at Slacktivist talks about a fair bit: people aren’t bigots because they’re stupid—bigotry, and the force of denial required to maintain it, make people stupid, because they have to continuously avoid engaging things like evidence and logic (and, substantially, compassion) that would make them not so.
One of my friends has parents who’ve never been very religious, continue to not be very religious, never go to church, don’t have Bibles around, don’t, in short, engage with religion in any meaningful way—except when the subject turns to her sexuality. At which point, they suddenly become extremely interested in telling her about What God Has To Say On The Subject Of Dykes.
What I took away from the piece was a sense that Christianity does indeed necessitate homophobia—that you can chose to either be a milquetoast Christian, or a homophobic Christian, or not a Christian at all. The writer mentioned, namely, that she agrees with one of the speakers that the Bible proscribes homosexuality—essentially ceding that everything AFTAH believes is true, except for the part before the branch (“If the Bible is true…”) I’m not Christian, and I’m hardly equipped for a biblical debate, but there seem to be quite a few Christians who do support and agitate for queer liberation and homomarriage and even a few who are gay themselves.
Basically, I don’t think it’s useful to toss out liberation theology and her followers just because of the theo- bit, however silly one might find it, and I think giving AFTAH and their ilk credibility as Real, True Christians (unlike those lukewarm, liberal Christians) effectively does that.
Ah, ok, I get what you’re saying now. Yeah, that’s fair.
I will say that for myself, I have an easier time understanding a more hard line, fundamentalist approach to religion than a progressive one, even though it’s like the opposite of what I personally believe and I don’t keep friends with those beliefs. Like, *if* I was a Christian, I’m not sure how I could gloss over all the scary shit in the Bible and only focus on the love and peace stuff. (That said, I’ve always found the Biblical justification for the condemnation of homosexuality to be weak as hell.) I’m too lawful for my own good, so it’s hard to wrap my brain around the idea of a sacred text that you don’t take too literally or a text that’s not really sacred, but you still base your belief system on some of the things it says anyway. I’m sure the problem is my own ignorance, but I’m not really into this fight I have no dog in. I’ve had friends explain bits and pieces of how their liberal churches think, but in the end it doesn’t really matter if it makes sense to me. I don’t believe any of it personally, but I certainly want progressive religious views to overtake the fundamentalist ones. To borrow your phrasing, both are incorrect to me, but only one is wrong. Incorrectness of liberal Christians isn’t really a big deal to me; I’m in the minority so I’m used to it and to each their own. It’s ok to disagree, but being morally wrong is unforgivable.
I don’t really have a use for the debate about who is and is not a Real Christian. If someone tells me they are a Christian that really only gives an ambiguous peek at what their beliefs are. I understand people who get upset about another group subverting the word of god and using Jesus’ name to do bad things, but that’s something believers need to work out amongst themselves. The only thing that really matters to me is how much political power and cultural influence a particular belief has. I’m against homophobes of all creeds, I don’t care what they call themselves.
I’m an atheist and I find the discussion on many sites, including the friendly atheist, just as irritating and reductive as you seem to. I think you’re spot on – if there were no religion, we’d find something else to base our stupidity on. Like whether you’re a Mac or a PC for instance, or what brand of running shoes you prefer, or something equally inane but effective.
“they see that Christianity is incorrect, and assume that’s the problem. As when we turn on the worldwide DeReligionizer Ray tomorrow, there will be no more social injustice!”
I had no idea I believed that. The things I learn about myself when reading other people’s off-the-cuff generalizations.
The impression I’ve gotten from more progressive Christians is that they read the Bible as the story of a people’s relationship with God and each other. It’s written by humans, sometimes humans hundreds of years later, so it has a Snopes-like quality: many of the stories were passed around and distilled before they ever hit the page. And it’s a story of humans, so of course it’s going to be bloody and, in some ways, horrifying.
Which leads to them trying to understand and emulate the relationship with God as a whole, rather than see the book as a list of rules (which, I think, it explicitly tells you not to do).
Is that the correct interpretation? I have no idea, but they certainly make a good argument; the people who hold it seem to be smart, reasonable, and committed to social justice, which is far more relevant to our relationship than whether their worldview is completely and totally rational.
I have spent a lot of time immersed in atheist writing and thought. I have never seen them present Christianity by itself as the source of homophobia- they always place the blame squarely on faith and magical thinking, which religions like Christianity endorse. If you think that there is some weird dude monitoring your thoughts and actions and will judge you eternally for em, what won’t you believe? Noah’s ark is something people die on expeditions trying to find.
Without religious faith in certain impossible ideas there are things that would be restricted to the extreme fringes of society otherwise. This is why anti-gay marriage activists and creationists keep failing in court. They think their perspective is as valid as any other, but really, it just isn’t. You need God to make certain kinds of leaps in logic.
Christianity most certainly DOES condemn homosexuality though. Andrea Dworkin has an interesting perspective on why (which is chronicled in “Right Wing Women”), but it isn’t made up. All the info is there about how we should totally kill gays, according to an angry vengeful god. Disinterested christianity doesn’t necessarily cause homophobia, but people who give enough of a damn about their holy book to read it find it hard to draw some other kind of conclusion.
As for the idea that patriarchal societies will always find a way to hate gay people- what about ancient greece? They loved gay sex, but still hated women.
violet, yeah, that’s how I have had it explained to me before and I still have problems with it. It sounds nice at first, but when I try and see how that works when the rubber meets the road I don’t get it. I don’t really understand how you are supposed to glean any sort of useful information out of a text that you accept from the outset as unreliable. The process of deciphering helpful truth seems so open to interpretation, how can any one set of views carry the authority needed to get me to believe in an omnipotent being.
Liberal Christianity invites questions, but cannot give answers that satisfy me. Fundamentalism does not invite questioning and doesn’t ask that its followers think through anything, just that they do what they are told. It’s a lot more straight forward, I guess is what I’m saying.
I take my mom’s tack and think of faith as more like personality trait that some people have and others don’t. I don’t think all believers are stupid or anything, but there’s something in religion that means something to them that has no effect on me at all. It’s a part of who they are. I don’t have to understand it. They don’t understand me either anyway. That doesn’t mean we can’t be neighbors and friends.
Well, it *shouldn’t* mean that, but I don’t advertise my views too much because so many people assume I must be immoral if I don’t believe in god. It’s like, geez, people, I wasn’t raised by wolves! My parents taught me right from wrong.