To the mind of a secular humanist, Christianity has to rank
as one of the most irrational and immoral belief systems every conceived of by
humankind. Almost any act of human
depravity – including rape, genocide, slavery, and human sacrifice is deemed to
be perfectly legitimate if sanctioned by the Christian god. Christianity
venerates the worst qualities of humanity; yet, Christians expect, nay, demand
that all bow down and "respect" it.
As one popular meme
puts it:
Christianity is the
belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live
forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you
accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that
is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to
eat from a magical tree...
According to Christian doctrine, if you don’t believe in
this nonsense, an eternal consignment to hell awaits you upon your transition
from this plane of existence.
Now it’s one thing if people hold these beliefs privately as
an exercise of freedom of religion. But
no, this is not the deal with Christianity – which historically has ALWAYS
sought to enact its noxious doctrines into law, or incorporate them into public
policy. While the Age of Reason has had
a tempering effect on Christianity, countries like Jamaica still suffer from Christian
intrusion into law and public policy. A
prime example of this is Jamaica’s 2011 Charter of Rights, which blatantly
enacts Christian discrimination against the LGBT community, offering no
protection against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. This Charter blocks Jamaicans from
challenging any law relating to sexual offences (read buggery), abortion,
obscene publications, or marriage.
These incursions on human rights were championed by the Lawyers Christian
Fellowship and enacted by a parliament more interested in genuflecting to
religious irrationality than upholding the rule of law. It’s this same parliament that rejected secular
advocacy for the inclusion of sexual orientation, disability, and language as
grounds of discrimination in the Charter of Rights.
Given the foregoing, I get really steamed when Christians demand
“respect” for their beliefs, when indeed, what they’re really demanding for
their beliefs is immunity from criticism and challenge. Let’s say, for argument’s sake that they are
really only asking for respect for their beliefs. Since when is a belief, per
se, worthy of respect? So if a man
believes that he has the right to rape a woman, am I obliged to “respect”
that? Am I similarly obliged to
respect a belief in stoning homosexuals simply because it’s part of some
religious holy book of beliefs?
Christians are so accustomed to exercising cultural hegemony over others
that any challenge, no matter how diplomatic is seen as an unforgiveable
affront to their beliefs. I call
bullshit. Sorry Christians, we’re no
longer in medieval times when heretics and apostates could be burned at the
stake for failure to conform to religious absolutes. We no longer live under theocracies, but
democracies, where, theoretically, all ideas contend, with none being
privileged over others.
So here’s the deal. I
really couldn’t give a rat’s ass if you’re offended by criticism or mockery of
your religion. If you can’t defend your
beliefs on the ground of rationality, then they deserve to be criticized or
mocked, and I certainly claim my right to do so. Oh, and being criticized or mocked doesn’t
make you a victim. I’m so sick and tired
of Christians pulling the victim card whenever they get pushback on their
irrational faith claims. On the one
hand they claim the right to proclaim their delusions to the world, but then object
when rationalists point out that they are, indeed, delusions…I can’t believe
that big-ass people will still tell you with a straight face that Adam and Eve
once cavorted in the Garden of Eve, and that the theory of evolution is some
sort of evil conspiracy to derail Christianity…. These delusions usually get
ramped up whenever the subject turns to sex and sexuality, where Christians are
quite happy to ignore all available biological evidence to pronounce on the
“sinfulness” of any sexual act outside of heterosexual marriage. Now if Christians want to live by their
silly sin code when it comes to sex, fine by me – that’s their right. But the problem with Christians is that they
want to impose this nonsense on non-believers as part of some delusional edict
to carry out the “will” of their mythical deity. Any resistance to such an imposition is seen
as an unforgiveable act of lèse-majesté,
punishable by invocations of hell and damnation.
At the end of the day, I respect the right of people to
believe whatever they want to. That’s a given regardless of how I might
personally feel about the person who holds a given belief. However, for me to respect that the content
of belief – that’s something that has to be earned, not demanded. When it comes to religious beliefs, and
their veneration of irrationality, you can be damn sure that I will NEVER
respect the content of such beliefs.
Not a backside…
Firebreather
☛These incursions on human rights were championed by the Lawyers Christian Fellowship and enacted by a parliament more interested in genuflecting to religious irrationality than upholding the rule of law☚
ReplyDeleteGood for the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship...here is a group of Jamaicans who have a particular view of things and have worked to get their ideas into the institutions that matter. In that respect, democracy is for people who show up. The same principle applies in the JTA, the House of Representatives, etc. etc. Unfortunately for us - and I imagine the rest of the Caribbean - the 15% or so who hold to the idea of a secular state/administration have no particular interest in actually entering these institutions and advancing their own agenda.
I wonder too if "impose" is actually the right word to describe what is happening in places like Jamaica, Uganda etc. Part of the advantage people like Scott Lively and company have is that human beings are always fertile ground for any message that allows them to grind down or step on the neck of the "other". It takes very little for us to be convinced that the guy/gal over there should be slaughtered/jailed/attacked because they are different...(see the devolution in the Central African Republic)
The essential question is - what does mockery and criticism of someone's religion accomplish? Assuming the goal is to advance a secular socio-political arrangement....
Hey Ali, thanks for your very thoughtful commentary.
DeleteUp to some point, I applaud the LCF for showing up and getting its agenda enacted in the Charter of Rights. But the LCF wasn't the only group that showed up. There were others that showed up advocating for the inclusion of sexual orientation, disability, and language as grounds of discrimination, and they got no joy from the Joint Select Committee of Parliament. That's not entirely surprising, given Jamaica's cultural predisposition to religiosity as opposed to secularism.
I do indeed insist that "impose" is the right word. Human rights theory is premised on egalitarianism, the idea that all are equal before the law, and that human rights are interdependent and indivisible. In this context, there is no room for the privileging of one set of rights over another - on the basis of religion or some other ideology. Jamaica's Charter of Rights quite clearly privileges religion, to the extent that it displaces the rights of others (particularly LGBT folks).
For me, mockery and criticism are tools of resistance to christian hegemony. For too long, christians have assumed that their beliefs are privileged/immune from criticism. Mockery and criticism serves to reframe the discourse, so that religious ideas are treated as simply one of many ideas in the discursive marketplace. I don't see mockery and criticism as derogating from the goal of advancing a secular socio-political arrangement at all. To the contrary, I see such a stance as advancing this project. Mockery and criticism aren't the only tools in the secular toolbox, but I do think they are important ones. Often criticism and mockery can generate a discussion or set in motion a dialectic process that otherwise wouldn't have occurred if critics were more concerned about upholding the cultural default position of "respect" for religious beliefs.
Human Rights Theory may well be premised on egalitarianism - but egalitarianism is something that has to be enforced, no? It is not the "natural" state of humans to think of ourselves as equals, deserving of equal treatment. And to enforce the idea of something like equal justice, or to enforce anti-discrimination policies, institutions that have to actually implement these practices have to be staffed by those of us who really do believe this.
DeleteAs an example, the debate on the status of Jamaican and the work on language policy will go no further than debate unless teachers, administrators, judges, etc. etc. buy into the notion that numbers of Jamaicans are routinely discriminated against on a daily basis because of their language.
I think what I am trying to get at is this - outside agitation for an issue has its limits, absent the willingness of masses of people to mobilize themselves. Having one human rights activist on the bench in Jamaica, for example, would have a greater impact on people's lives; having one secular humanist on the school board...etc. etc.
Isn't mockery and criticism (a la Dawkins) really just a species of self-indulgence?
Yes Ali, I agree with you that human rights theory and its egalitarian notions require enforcement. That's the role of international law, constitutions, courts, etc. I definitely do agree with you that enforcement institutions like courts do need personnel who are invested in human rights protection.
DeleteI will also agree with you that the language debate is unlikely to proceed without the input of concerned teachers, judges, etc who are prepared to turn their face institutionally against language discrimination. Yes, outside agitation does have its limits, but at the same time, I do think it has its place. Sometimes it can help to stimulate the institutional insiders to take a fresh look. I've seen that at work with jurisprudence of the IACHR influencing domestic courts on human rights issues.
Perhaps having a human rights activist on the bench in Jamaica would make a difference. However, I'm not sure that one can readily compare the impact of a HR activist on the bench versus a HR activist outside of the courts. Bear in mind that the Bench doesn't determine the cases that come to it; whereas an activist is free to pursue whatever cases he/she might choose.
No, I don't think mockery and criticism is a species of self-indulgence, though I can understand why you might see it that way. Satire, broadly speaking has a long and venerable history in supporting or promoting resistance to oppression or hegemony.
To be sure though, there are indeed different styles of satire, parody and "strategic indignation" (as opposed to wanton mockery). I personally have no problem calling bullshit on certain faith based assertions, but at the same time simply posting a picture of a holy book in a toilet, for example, achieves nothing. And this has nothing to do with the fact that I don't believe some of these holy books deserve to be flushed, but because the audience to which I would be directing the image would've abandoned the discussion before I had the proper opportunity to address their assertions.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand it is downright dangerous to simply smile at religionists while they bulldoze the rights of others and command the lion's share of public opinion all in the name of advancing the will of their deity. But, on the other hand, insofar as skeptics and theists can put their differences aside and work towards completing a particular project which would be mutually beneficial to both groups, then there might be no need for trading shots within that context.