On Religion and Politics being non-mixy things...

This weekend bloggers are writing out the issues surrounding this "Christian" nation, and the separation of Church and State... the first amendment right of "freedom of religion."

Interestingly, we call it the "freedom of religion" amendment, but it also guarantees an American's right to NOT have a religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I have a right to be non-theist.

Earlier this weekend, in the midst of an online discussion about Al Gore's take on Global Warming, a poster made the comment that it was like her faith in God. "It is better to live as though there is a God, and be wrong, than to live as though there is no God, and be wrong." I see and hear this sentiment frequently, even in my very 'blue,' very urban, very liberal Pacific Northwest, where arguably, it is easier to be an atheist than nearly anywhere else in this nation.

I take issue with this statement on multiple levels.

As a non-theist from a strong and fanatical Christian religious background, I feel I am living a better, far more responsible life as a far more conscious citizen of the world than I ever even imagined as a faithful, god-loving/worshipping Christian.

I never realized how much hostility there is toward non-christians, and especially non-theists in this country, until I realized I was one. Sayings like these, though seemingly a nice sentiment, platitude, and all around lovely piece of advice (all said with tongue firmly in cheek), bolster that attitude of separation (though not from "State", only from each other,) and superiority, as well as hostility towards atheists.

Morality and "virtue" are not the exclusive province of people who believe in a personal god. "Be wrong?" The way I see this portion of the quote is that it is either:

1. insinuating that if I am wrong about god and don't live as a Christian, I'll have a terrible life (which, if you think about it, is a pretty insulting assumption, which leaves no room for having a moral compass or ethical code among anyone but "believers",) or
2. GOD is going to "get" me for not believing in him. I've always felt that if GOD would kill me or torment me forever simply for not believing in him, he's not the kind of GOD I would wish to follow. That's not the sort of morality I want to teach children.

I also realize that some theists do not take this narrow and biased view of non-christians and non-theists, though they may not understand the choice. In my experience, these type of Christians are rare. I've met a few ~ my beloved Auntie, who died in 2005, was one such Christian, and she never EVER tried to make me feel as though I were "wrong" or somehow less of a good person/good citizen.

I suspect the person who coined that prejudicial platitude was not that sort of Christian.

I see religion as one of the easiest venues for abuse and division, even more so than politics, since "true believers" often refuse to even consider another viewpoint. My family has been severely and detrimentally impacted by Christianity in one of it's worst, most intolerant forms. And yet my parents, and my husband's family still cling to it, claiming everyday that they are the "happiest people on earth." Today, I felt like saying something.

It often happens that, after finding that I am a non-theist, Christians will tell me "God bless," as if they are doing me a favor. To me, this very much like finding out someone is an Israeli Jew, then telling him, "Salam," which roughly translated means "peace in Allah." I know that many Christians don't see it that way. I also get told that Jesus died for my sins. This is by far more offensive than the greeting. First, "sin" is a very religious concept that assumes that all people are born morally flawed and that God demanded that someone be brutally murdered to provide a mediator for all of us morally repugnant people. A Christian finds that comforting, as a non-theist, I find the concept heinous.

I'm not that sorry about my fundamentalist past, (with the exception of all the people I bothered on Saturdays, holidays and school inservice days, to push my particular brand of Theocracy.) It gave me the opportunity to really examine and decide what I believe, rather than just adopting the views of my parents. See, you have to understand, it's not the knowing that there are Christians who believe in the existence of Bible God that I find offensive, because to me, that's rather like believing in the Easter Bunny. It's not really of much consequence to me, and people are entitled to believe whatever they wish. Rather, it is when they try to impose the belief on me, insisting:

"Just because you don't believe in the Easter Bunny, doesn't mean he's not real, he loves you and will bring you eggs and chocolate, then after that he's going to go find the big bad wolf and request that he skin him alive and then kill him and eat him, instead of you, so you will have the chance to not be eaten by the big bad wolf, and instead stick around and eat that wonderful chocolate."

I know, ridiculous huh? but that is how belief in a Biblical God sounds to my ears.

There's another one of those online petitions being circulated regarding separation. You can find it here. Of particular relevance are the points:

• Every American should have the right to make personal decisions -- about family life, reproductive health, end of life care and other matters of personal conscience.

• American tax dollars should not go to charities that discriminate in hiring based on religious belief or that promote a particular religious faith as a requirement for receiving services.

• Political candidates should not be endorsed or opposed by houses of worship.

• Public schools should teach with academic integrity and without the promotion of religious preference or belief.

• Decisions about scientific and health policies should be based on the best available scientific data, not on religious doctrine.

Coming from a Jehovah's Witness background I have mixed feelings about point #1. It's well known that JWs do not accept blood transfusions. The doctrine is arbitrary and convoluted, based on a couple of out of context bible texts that were mainly addressing the religious ceremonial use of blood, and had absolutely nothing to do with the sanctity of life from a medical perspective. (See AJWRB.org)

This doctrine is bolstered with a great deal of fear mongering among the Witnesses about the cautions and contra-indications for use of blood in medicine. Big medical terms like cytomegalovirus, alloimmunization, thrombocytopenia, and others, are thrown around recklessly to frighten the uninformed into adhering closely to a religious ideal. If this doesn't work, they resort to the nuclear option: AIDS, followed closely by a non-medical based opinion that "blood transfusions don't work anyways." Add to this the fear that God will kill you at Armageddon, (if you don't die from the blood,) if you were to accept the transfusion, well, it has a great deal of power for these people.

In addition, when someone does lose their life following this policy, the family is told that they "died faithful." The tragedy is turned into martyrdom, a rallying cry, a source of pride and joy.

(Never mind that there are scientific issues with the religious doctrine of blood transfusion. In current JW dogma, a person can accept many of the components of blood- fractions- in their fractionated state. If they remain whole, it is unacceptable. Break it down into all of its little parts and it's a-okay. For more information on this subterfuge, see "Jehovah's Witness, Blood Transfusions and the Tort of Misrepresentation."

This is all fine for adults. Every adult has the right to be, well, crazy, for their religious beliefs. The problem is, children die for it too.

Recently, there has been a well-publicized case in the news about sextuplets born to Jehovah's Witness parents in British Columbia. Two of the children have died already due to complications. Three of the four surviving children were court-ordered to receive blood transfusions, against the religious beliefs and wishes of the parents. Medical personnel believed the children would die without medical and Judicial intervention. Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, have referred to this incident, and countless others, as a "violation," "rape," and in the US and Canada, have often argued that this is a matter that the government needs to stay out of, a first amendment protection. In many cases, they have won, and children have died.

I find it hard to reconcile my belief that people have a right to place their faith where they will, with my conviction that the government has a right to intervene when the "faith" harms its citizens. Where do you draw the line? Death? Sure, adults should have the legal right to take their beliefs into martyrdom, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. What about the 12 year old JW in a car accident who is refusing blood transfusions as a "mature minor?" This is a CHILD, who has been heavily indoctrinated. I know, I was there once... emergency surgery at 15, and all I could think about was how terrified I was that someone would give me blood.

I guess this is why the issue will be forever up for debate and interpretation, here and abroad.

I stumbled across a particularly profound and poignant thought in a photo essay. The title of the journal was "What they Dream and What they Do".

A young man named Amin, who is Persian, was asked what he dreams. At first he jokingly stated that he dreams of owning a Ferrari. Then becoming serious, he said his dream was that one day our race is "human being", our religion is "humanity" and our nationality is "citizen of the world."

Can you imagine if that were true?


A friend commented thus to me by email this week:

The religious zealot of any faith could never survive without the camouflage of the religious "moderate." I used to think it was ok that these people went their merry way when in fact I wished that all the flowing robed myths from the sky would go the way of Apollo, Poseiden, and Thor. I have come to realize that it is not ok. Not just because the "moderate" Islamic shields the maniac who would make Jihad, but because the "moderate" Christian and Jew and every other faith hides the very same who would recreate the Crusades and the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition given half a chance. There is no such thing as a religious moderate and these people need to be made aware of that in the most up front and in their face way. There is no time to be polite and respectful of "beliefs" when we wouldn't hesitate to argue with anyone who said 2+2=9 or anything equally ridiculous...

So where does that leave us? Simple. It leaves us in a world controlled by idiots and maniacs. Ones who believe in unfounded tribal gods and their right to do so and don't believe in the science behind Global Warming, Stem Cell research, or any of the hundreds of other reasonable things that could stave off disaster or improve the lot of humankind. We are expected to sit still and take this shit. The Islamics are dangerous without a doubt. The Christians do no better. None of the world's remaining superstitions (and that is what they are after all-- look it up in the dictionary) should remain as long as they continue to be the source of hatred and degradation of the world condition.

If you consider yourself to actually be a religious moderate ask yourself if you truly believe or if you simply interpret in a way that makes you happy."

I know there are good people out there who are deeply religious, whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or any number of other theistic religion. I know a few of these good people, I've been related to a few. But the type of religious person who embraces diversity, freedom, family and the world, is the type that I don't meet often. Mostly, I'm familiar with the type that tells you that God only loves one segment of society, or that God is blessing some political or military action, or even that he wishes you to die prematurely based on one tiny little poorly interpreted bible verse, to prove YOU love HIM.

I guess all of this leaves me unsatisfyingly divided on how "separate" I feel the Separation of Church and State should actually be.

• I believe that the State should not dictate what constitutes a family.

• I believe that a woman has a right to choose, but that termination of viable pregnancy should be as President Clinton stated: "Safe, legal, and rare."

• I believe that our tax dollars should not be used to fund faith-based efforts if part of the funds are used to indoctrinate the receivers, or even if a hint of pressure is applied towards the conversion of the recipients.

• I believe calling ourselves a "Christian Nation" is divisive, not only to the world, but upon our own soil.

• I believe that there are still churches where someone desperately in need can get no-strings-attached help, but that these places are becoming rarer.

• I believe that the people who are abusive in religion would often be abusive without religion, but that some religions establish a society where abuse or control is acceptable, even encouraged.

• I believe that thinking people everywhere should take a stand against these organizations, even when it is politically incorrect or "rude" to do so. We need to recognize that standing against an organization is not the same as being against the individual.

• I believe that the judicial branch of our government should stay out of peoples' religious decisions, unless those decisions are bringing immediate physical harm to minors or innocent bystanders. People have a legal right to be idiots, bigoted, classist, and reckless, as long as they don't do harm to other citizens. The State should not be the arbiters of personal morals or ethics.

• Finally, I believe that ambivalence can be a difficult place to live, but I'd much rather be here than in that place where I knew every last thing I believed, one of which was the belief that My God was soon going to destroy every last person who did not hold the same beliefs that I held.