Saturday, October 16, 2010

Atheism and Religion and allying ourselves with the right people

These past couple weeks/months have seen a lot of outspoken Atheists doing good work.

Dan Savage has started the It Gets Better project, an internet campaign for bullied GLBT youth. Foundation Beyond Belief, an ongoing source of good for the secular community, has released its most recent list of beneficiaries.

In the last few weeks, I've been keeping a vague eye (I'm in the middle of student teaching, so vague is probably the strongest term at this point) on the goings on between FBB and Soulforce as documented on Hemant's blog. There has been a lot of concern regarding Soulforce's religious affiliations. Particularly, that because they are religious, FBB shouldn't be giving them money, which is a valid point...I suppose.

Across the internet, we see the IGB project going strong and, in particular, we see a Texas City Councilman, Joel Burns telling the story of his childhood during a Council meeting, but on The Digital Cuttlefish, we see a topic comparing Joel Burns and Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire for the Episcopalian Church. Again, what we see is a diminishing of the contributions of a religious person specifically because of their religious message...and this time we don't even have the facade of "Well...this is supposed to support an Atheist cause" to hide behind.

Over the last few years as the Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon Churches have been making homophobic, racist, sexist, etc...statements carte blanche, our first question we ask is "Well, why do Queer people, black people, women, and a host of other groups actually stay in the church if it is subjugating them so?"

But now we see a number of religious organizations (I mean, the Bishop of New Hampshire is gay, for goodness sake) stepping forward and saying, "No. This is wrong, fellow religious people. We must stop this and we shall work toward it." and we have the audacity to say, "Well, you have a religious message, so I'm going to downplay what you have to say."

My mind was completely blown when I saw the message by Dale McGowan on Friendly Atheist.

First of all, let's not get any delusions about what they are there for.

Of course they are going to have a religious message. They're religious. They aren't out there for US. They're out there for one reason and one reason only, to preach a "gospel of tolerance" to their fellow Christians. They aren't going to get there without using the ethos of their creator. What was it that they were expecting Soulforce to be doing? Beating religious homophobes with Festivus poles?

Does it really diminish the message that homosexuality needs to stop being discriminated against and talked about in a hateful context by religion because they, themselves, are religious?

I don't think so. Indeed, I think an organization like this is going to end up being the only working entry point to take care of religious homophobia. But, we need to be careful to understand that, to get the rest of the religious groups on our side, we have to talk like them...and sometimes that means finding allies that ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN GOD. I mean, it's not like they're talking to us...they're talking to their fellow religious people. Just like how when Gene Robinson is talking and saying "God" 14 times and talking about how "God loves you beyond your wildest imagining" he isn't talking to Atheist GLBT kids.

As if we actually need to hear that.

Who do you think he's talking to? He's talking to the kids who go every Sunday to church and wonder why "God made them different." Why "God allows bullies to make fun of them if they were created in his image." Do you think that telling a little kid who's already distraught because he's bullied for who he is that "God doesn't exist" is going to be of any help at all?

Of course not.

I agree that, perhaps for us, saying how much God loves all of his gay creations too, to us, would feel like a watery broth compared to the sumptuous "Not mentioning god at all" speech that Joel gave...but we aren't the audience here...and we were never intended to be. The audience that Gene is looking to reach with his speech is one of people who are internally tormented every day by a creator they revere but think doesn't care about them because of who they are.

And if anyone has the ethos to put that message across to all the homosexual Christians out there, it's him.

So, I understand that Bishop Robinson talks about god etc...and that religion is bullshit etc...

But there are plenty of people who are gay that aren't atheists...and if we should presume that the only people that deserve to hear this message are secular people, then we are just as bad as the bullies and the parents indoctrinating their kids.

To a young religious gay kid, that speech by Bishop Robinson will be able to touch places in their hearts that Councilman Burns' never could.

So, let's get our heads on straight here, Atheists:

The fight against bullying by religious groups for the GLBT community is important because it directly mirrors our own struggle, but we can't shut down when suddenly we have to start working with the groups that share our message of tolerance in spite of the rest of what they think.

For Bishop Robinson, that meant letting his young Christians know that there will still be a place for them in God's eyes regardless of who they love.

For Soulforce, that means working with other religious groups to help them come to the realization that, just like for them, homosexuality doesn't have to be "an abomination in the eyes of the lord"

Is it the only thing that Foundation Beyond Belief could be spending their money on? I suppose not; but, at last glance, the Human Rights category has nothing in it now. So who is FBB helping by not sponsoring ANYBODY?


Edit: Hemant says, "FBB will be announcing a replacement for Soulforce in our Human Rights category in the next day or two. We just want to be *extra* sure we're not replacing one mistake with another :) I think people will be happy with our decision"


This is an excellent thing. Thanks for the update!

5 comments:

  1. You misrepresent my post, and my comments. I do not diminish Bishop Robinson's contribution because of its religious message; I praise his contribution, and note many favorable things about it. I genuinely respect him and his message, and say so more than once in my post.

    Are you--personally--as moved by Bishop Robinson's video as by Councilman Burns's? I was not; not by a long shot. It honestly seemed as if Robinson was apologizing for his god's lack of presence--a god who loves you as much as Robinson says should not need such apologetics. I took Robinson's message at face value, and evaluated it as such; I did not say "god does not exist", but rather noted that Robinson's god has not been terribly demonstrative in expressing the love he holds for us. Do you suggest that I should *not* take Robinson at his word? Should his view be coddled? Does he need protection? No--he does his job as well as any could, given the bankrupt position his religion has put him in.

    You think Robinson's speech will "be able to touch places in their hearts that Councilman Burns' never could." I respectfully disagree, as a formerly religious person. (Actually, this is not a blanket disagreement--there may well be individuals for whom this is true; whether they constitute a meaningful bloc is not supported by evidence.) My experience as a religious believer was not that of a mindless, obedient theo-bot; I was encouraged by my pastor to question, to doubt, to demand explanations. The unsupported assertion (against, I remind you, the evidence of my everyday experience) that god loves me, would not hold water no matter *what* religious authority uttered it. (Perhaps this is an artifact of my own religious background; whatever it is, it does not jibe with your analysis.) Do you really have such a low opinion of believers, that you think they would take a Bishop's word against their own experience?

    Lastly... Do you find it odd that you can complain that my post allegedly ignores the fact that Robinson's message was aimed at believers... while not recognizing that my own post was *not*? Some of my readers are believers, but the vast majority are not. I am not a big fish--I have very few readers, compared to the many who will view Bishop Robinson's video. I'm flattered that you pay attention to my post, but the truth is that few will, and the vast majority of those few are atheists. I know full well that Robinson was speaking to *his* audience. I applauded his efforts, and still do, and respect him for doing the right thing against difficulties I probably cannot even imagine. Of course I disagree with him on The Big Question, but I support this action 100%!

    Are you looking for conflict? You certainly have read things into my post that I did not put there. Please. Don't let a good story get in the way of telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I meant to respond to you on this on google reader, when I originally shared Cuttlefish's post. I didn't have time when I first read your reply, and then it got kind of lost in everything else I had to do.

    Anyhow, I agree with you that we shouldn't reject people doing work we agree with simply because they happen to be religious/have religious motivations. Like Cuttlefish, I have a lot of appreciation for religious leaders who step and say something about issues like this.

    The problem with that video is that "no really, God DOES love you, ignore whatever anyone else (including your own preacher) has told you," ISN'T particularly comforting if you think about it at all. And believe me, many kids who are struggling with this issue DO think about it.

    I'll give you that some people don't, that some people are so deep in their religion still that they don't question, and giving them assurances that God does love them is truly comforting. Which is exactly why I appreciate what Robinson is doing--the reality is that some gay people will never leave religion, but those people don't deserve to suffer needlessly for that choice.

    The argument, I think, is that Joel Burn's speech is more comforting because it approaches people on a human level, and because it fits with the reality that people live with. "No really, he does love you!" is always going to sound like an apology, and is always going to be just a flat statement without any regard for the realities of people's lives. And that means it's always going to ring a bit hollow.

    ReplyDelete
  3. DC:

    "Are you--personally--as moved by Bishop Robinson's video as by Councilman Burns's?"

    Of course not. And for the same reasons that we both stated in our posts.

    "It honestly seemed as if Robinson was apologizing for his god's lack of presence--a god who loves you as much as Robinson says should not need such apologetics."

    Well, of course. But, apologetics is an religious internal defense mechanism. It's masturbatory, it's insipid, and we see right through it; but, it makes them feel better.

    "I took Robinson's message at face value, and evaluated it as such; I did not say "god does not exist", but rather noted that Robinson's god has not been terribly demonstrative in expressing the love he holds for us."

    But, how is that taking Robinson's message at face value? His message was, "Christian Gay people, don't worry about what other people think about you. God still loves you. I'm a bishop and I approve this gay message!" He wasn't making a case for his god. All he was doing was preaching to his gay flock. That's his right, I think. To then dissect his message and say his is obviously less of a message because it talks about his deity is missing the point completely.

    "Do you suggest that I should *not* take Robinson at his word? Should his view be coddled? Does he need protection?"

    No, but I don't think he needs the opposite to happen either. He's a bishop. I think, at this point he's fairly well gone. Attempting to tell him that his invocation of God in a situation where, by his own estimation, his god is responsible for the ills that have befallen the gay people he's trying to reach isn't going to help his oratorical skills.

    "You think Robinson's speech will 'be able to touch places in their hearts that Councilman Burns' never could.' I respectfully disagree, as a formerly religious person. (Actually, this is not a blanket disagreement--there may well be individuals for whom this is true; whether they constitute a meaningful bloc is not supported by evidence.)"

    But who are you to say what a meaningful bloc is? If those were the people he was aiming for, and it seems obvious to me by his language that it was (because who else is going to listen to that speech and not turn it off after he says God for the fifth time?) then who are we to diminish that? If it was a direct message to Jimmy in Albuquerque, it wouldn't make his words any less important to the one person he was talking to.

    "My experience as a religious believer was not that of a mindless, obedient theo-bot; I was encouraged by my pastor to question, to doubt, to demand explanations."

    You are in a great minority, friend.

    --Continued--

    ReplyDelete
  4. (2/2)

    "Do you really have such a low opinion of believers, that you think they would take a Bishop's word against their own experience?"

    Absolutely. And maybe that sounds cold...and maybe it is, but remember that religious individuals, particularly Christian religious individuals are groomed from birth to be "Childlike in their faith in Christ." Which is why your background is somewhat shocking to me.

    "Lastly... Do you find it odd that you can complain that my post allegedly ignores the fact that Robinson's message was aimed at believers... while not recognizing that my own post was *not*?"

    Actually, I assumed it...and that's part of why why I felt like I had to comment on it. Why would you assume that Bishop Robinson's message was meant for anybody in your audience if, in fact, your audience is composed of mostly non-theists?

    "I'm flattered that you pay attention to my post."

    I can't even begin to imagine why. >_>

    "I know full well that Robinson was speaking to *his* audience."

    Honestly, it didn't seem like it. I guess I don't understand why you would specifically pick on a video like that if you knew it wasn't meant for you and still feel the need to pick it apart like that?
    ---
    So, now that I've responded, I want to talk/type/whatever a little bit in defense of my piece.

    What bothered me about your post had not as much to do with what you said about the video itself but with the fact that you brought Atheism into it at all.

    Yes, Dan Savage is an Atheist. But he didn't do this project because he was an Atheist, right? He did it because he's gay and gays are killing themselves because they're being bullied.

    It seems to me that this project is an open forum. Everybody who participates in this project in a positive way should be rewarded. But to turn these videos into an excuse to say this:

    "If someone who "loves you beyond your wildest imaginings" neglects you in your suffering--and worse, contributes to it--it is time to end that relationship. And when you do...

    It gets better."

    That's not what this is about.

    And you're right. You're spot on about absolutely everything you said...but it wasn't the time or the place to say it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. FBB will be announcing a replacement for Soulforce in our Human Rights category in the next day or two. We just want to be *extra* sure we're not replacing one mistake with another :) I think people will be happy with our decision.

    ReplyDelete