I skimmed a new Newsweek article that touched on a possible "end" to "Christian America" (LINK) and I am actually happy about the new statistics regarding religion in America.
I am an agnostic individual. I do not confirm nor deny the existence of a God or gods that may or may not exist in the supernaturality (if it's not a word, it should be). I gracefully take a skeptic's stance in the face of organized religion, effectively saying the phrase, "I'll believe it when I see it, and even then I'm going to questions 'why?'". My main problem with humans is the creation of such religions that claim extraordinary things. I understand that humans must make sense of the world around us, creating explanations of unexplainable things, but when it is morphed into any old interpretation, used as a rule of law or moral code for the majority, there is a problem.
For any of you that come from my Facebook, my info states under my religious views that I don't care, as long as you don't tell me you're right. Which is as plain as I can be. I am more than willing to discuss theology with anyone, use their circular logic against them, but when I am told that I am wrong and they are right, there is a disconnect. If I truly believed the sky was red, and ended a conversation with "you're wrong, it's not blue, it's red, I'm right," you'd look at me as if I were crazy and walk away. This is my feeling on proselytizing is it should not be around. If we are all truly meant to believe in something, it would present itself to each and every one of us, and make us a core believer, not a follower of some esoteric doctrine said on high. Of course, there is that convenient thing in Christianity saying that if one does not accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior, then one is doomed to damnation, electrifying the whole free-will debate (but that's a whole different story for another time).
So to say that Christian America is shrinking is to say that we as a nation are moving toward a more inclusive country, that even though our fore fathers were Christian and used Christian principles to govern, we can still use those laws in a blanket fashion, where one's creed or religious affiliation has nothing to do with how one is treated. One specific debate would be same-sex marriage: Is it morally wrong for two people of the same sex to have a legal joining under the eyes of the law based on the teachings of people who don't exist anymore, or is discriminatory to not offer Bob and Rob the same rights under the law as Bob and Sue, regardless what the teachings say in that case?
What I see in the fall of any religious majority in any country is parity among all who dwell within. Because then, and only then, does the rights of man (and woman) come before the rights of a Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu.
The more people who become atheists or agnostics create an army of questioners (some more than others, of course) that pause to look at the moral majority, and say "Wait a second, that doesn't sound right..."
Think of this way, if you are religious and spiritual and believe the Bible: The more non-believers there are means heaven won't be so crowded. Just something to think about the next time you try to spread the good news.
I know there are some strong thoughts and viewpoints on the other side, so I am willing to hear them!
2 comments:
Maybe Christianity is different, or maybe the nature of the conversation is different when it's between a believe and a non-believer or between two believers, but my experience of theological discussions has been that the religious admit "no, logic doesn't back us up. It's a question of faith". It's a tricky word - faith - and I'm not going to go into why it's obviously problematic and why I think it's a fair argument nonetheless, but I just wanted to make the point that at least usually, I think, the religious are aware that what they believe in can't be conclusively proved.
Thing is, there aren't that many countries in the world that use religion as "rule of law". There's Sudan and Saudi Arabia and Iran, and possibly a few others (what we lovingly refer to down here as Hamastan), but the US is certainly not one of them.
Of course I don't live in America, but I don't think you're right in saying your country discriminates between people of different faiths. There's been a long history of persecuting people of specific faiths, and it still goes on in many places in the world, but not in the US.
The example you bring of same-sex marriage is a good one, but I think it's the only one that can support your case. That doesn't make it any less problematic, but I'd suggest that the discrimination against gays arises more from plain homophobia then dogmatic religiousity. It is a problematic reality, but in theory the answer to the question is already there, seeing as the US long ago (and unlike, say, Israel) decided on a separation between Church and State. Religion can co-exist with democracy, so long as it knows its place, and in America, at least theoretically, it does.
Many completely non-religious countries have practiced shameless discrimination. China, Apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany and all its fascist friends. I really don't think discrimination is rooted in religion.
I'm also not sure I agree with your assertion that Agnostics are more questioning people. I certainly don't agree about the Atheists. That's a faith that could be said to blinder than any theism. I think it's important that people are thinking and questioning, but I don't think it's impossible to be religious and do that, and I don't think it's necessarily true that all Agnostics are this way. With many it's probably a question of simple indifference or influence by some kind of Agnostic environment.
All this said, it doesn't break my heart either to hear there are less religious in the US, and it wouldn't break my heart to hear there are less religious Jews in Israel. I think that people's faith is their own business, and I don't think that in practice it has as much effect on their behaviour as you seem to think.
I think the problems you're talking about could be more efficiently addressed by focusing on expounding on the virtues of democracy like essentially no one seems to do, ever, than by weakening what you percieve as threats to it. If people actually understand democracy, are made to feel its importance and to agree on the necessity of reinforcing it, they wouldn't let idiotic considerations hold as much weight for them in discussion of this sort. When democracy is known only as something vaguely positive that always has and always will be there, it's no wonder people let themselves entertain contrary ideas to it. As far as they're concerned all they're doing is having an open mind.
I'm sure I could find a number of arguments that work just as well as same-sex marriage.
But in any case, I understand where you're coming from, as we have had numerous debates about God and religion on other sites, with people less open-minded or thoughtful as yourself.
By the by, you are my favorite. Your comments are always great and long too. Thanks and keep it up.
Post a Comment