Ah, yes, at last - a post I have considered trying to write many times, and I'm not sure how far I'll get with this one. Suffice to say that there is material for a public entry, and material for a locked entry. Public is - naturally - easier, so let's go.
I've been doing a lot of reading of various science blogs lately, and a lot of those link across to various atheism blogs. The idea of these blogs (well, the good ones) is to stimulate discussion (not about whether God exists; if you're on an atheist blog you might well consider that a solved problem) and thought on issues stemming from the problems we face having the church so thoroughly implanted in the state.
Meanwhile, there's the "Mark No Religion On The Australian Census" campaign, with which I thoroughly agree.
Except... there's a problem with that. Not for me; in spite of my wishful leanings, I'm quite comfortable marking "no religion". My problem is that I have this vague sense that everyone should mark "no religion" - even if they are deeply religious - to avoid pigeonholing.
I've known a few people of quiet, unshakeable faith - I can't relate to it - who nevertheless had political views and beliefs more in line with my own, i.e. pro-choice, pro-science, pro-environment, and a wish for a genuinely even-handed society (i.e. please let same-sex couples get married? It will cost you nothing).
The fact is that, to a certain extent, when you tick that "religion" box, either based on faith or based on your sense of cultural identity, you will be pigeonholed. Maybe that's too strong. I don't have a first-hand experience of how that data is used. What I have seen is far right-wing Christians saying, "There are X number of Christians in Australia and WE believe/want/need/demand..."
It seems enormously patronising to say that, if you tick that box, you're saying Jim Wallace of the ACL speaks for you, but I think that's the case. Jim Wallace obviously doesn't speak for you, but savvy manipulators (and just because we don't fall for it doesn't mean other people won't) will use these numbers.
On the other hand, a person could rightly get offended and angry at that assumption. Why should they have to lie about their beliefs? Their religious beliefs do not automatically mean they hold a particular set of political values. Their religion and their politics are two separate things.
And that is exactly the point. It's a problem. I wouldn't blame anyone for being shitty and not wanting to downplay the significance of their own religion in their life, but at the same time, those numbers will be misused by religious people who are arseholes. Just witness the amazing Gumbo impression that Gillard does - an atheist twisting around to placate the religious right.
So - if you're a left-wing person of any religion (I've only mentioned Christianity, as that's the one that seems to get the most political clout here these days) - you're in a conundrum. Do you lie, to try and keep politics and religion separate? Or do you tell the truth, and try in your own way to separate the ridiculous myth that says all people of a particular religion have the same views?
I have no idea. It's a puzzle of an ideal versus the cynical reality.
On the next note, conversions! Reading a lot of these blogs suggests that conversations between atheists and religious types happen quite often. I don't know if I'm particularly non-confrontational (actually, I'm not. Anyone who knows me knows I'm usually delighted to clear the air. On almost anything), or if perhaps I'm just non-confrontational when I know the outcome is guaranteed to be very unpleasant, but I've seen very few of these.
At heart, I'm not really an accomodationist; I do believe it's harmful to believe so fervently something that seems to not be true (or at least there's no supporting evidence, and documentation is really only a small part of the story); I do believe it's harmful to expect other people to live their lives and make their decisions according to your beliefs (in act, it makes me furious); and I absolutely despise the notion that morality comes from some divine aspect, when it should come from reasoning and compassion and society.
And yet, I avoid religious discussions like the plague. I shouldn't. I know and firmly believe that communication is key in all things, but here are a few of the reasons I can't get past it (yes, I'm a pansy):
(1) It's rude. At the base of it all, I know what I think about religions, I know what I think about fundamentalists, although I'm not too fussed by vague spirituality. That communication I mentioned above is based on honesty, and if I'm having a debate on the merits of religion, I am constantly, constantly editing the thought bubble in my head, "You believe what? You must know the implications of that. I know you're not an idiot. You must be a loon." And I'm aware that they may be suppressing a similar bubble. This stilts conversation for me and makes it very uncomfortable. I'm capable of tact, but dishonesty is another matter. I'm very bad at it. In the end, the other person is - unless they're completely non-perceptive - well aware that I think they've short-changed themselves by buying into something like this.
(2) A debate on this issue can't have a good outcome. Here are the possible outcomes:
(2a) I win. This is unlikely. I convince the religious person that their whole belief system is nonsensical. Actually, that's going to be enormously traumatic for them. Maybe they were happy before, and now they're not. I'm an arsehole.
(2b) I lose. Um. I guess this would mean I am converted, but that's never going to happen. Still, being logical, let's assume I go insane and my brain stops working.
(2c) The discussion gets strained and everyone is cross and frustrated with everyone else.
You know what? It's not religion. It's the specifics. I'm fine with people believing in a god or gods. Sure, go nuts. Why not? I haven't completely ruled it out myself in a philosophical sense. It's the details - like heaven and hell, marriage rules, original sin, ideas about sex, and so on and so forth - that drive me nuts.
When I was a child someone tried to explain original sin to me. I thought it was a horrible idea. How was that fair? People now are suffering because of that? Then there was sex. Wait. Lust is a sin? Sex is sinful? Wait a minute. Why would you create people with a whole bunch of urges and then say, "Oh wait, don't have those urges. Naughty, naughty!" Then there's creationism, and I won't get me started except to wonder why you would give a species a big squishy brain and then say, "Oh, don't use THAT thing. It's a place holder for the second heart I never got around to putting in there."
And the problem seems to be that the stage we are at in regard to how we understand the world around us is fundamentally incompatible with mystical explanations.
And yet, in theory I can be perfectly respectful of someone else's beliefs and lifestyle. If it involves minor changes to my behaviour (not swearing, etc.), whatever, it's not like I don't expect other people to be sensitive to me, so why the hell not? I'll do that. It's fine. It's when people start getting in my face that I don't like it.
The problem is that "getting in my face" includes things like:
1. The National School Chaplaincy Program
2. Religious instruction in public schools
3. Anyone who is against same-sex marriage
4. Anyone who campaigns against safe access to abortions (no, not all anti-choicers are religious, but there is a very strong correlation).
5. Censorship
Basically, situations in the public, secular sphere where religion is invoked as a reason to allow or not allow something. Sod that. Why should I have to live according to your religion?
In the end I'm either very angry or very mellow, depending on the situation. I believe that if we're going to advance as a species and as a society, we need church things to be held in churches. In the public sphere, religion should not have a voice. People should have a voice, but not to speak for their religion; only to speak for themselves, or a defined group of people who have signed up specifically to share those views (like a lobby group or political party). Religion should not be in schools. It should not be in politics. It should not be in research labs and in hospitals.
It can be in you. That's fine. But it's not in me, and I resent anyone deciding something based on the assumption that it should be a part of my life. That's goddamn patronising, forgive the pun.
