See, most of my friends are atheists. I'm an atheist. (In case someone wonders what that means, it's the absence of a belief in any deity).
It's difficult - if not impossible - to get religious folks to talk with us; either they're afraid of confronting the disquieting reality that their Imaginary Friend may really be - well - imaginary, or they're just uncomfortable with discussing their faith in something which can't be seen.
It was with a certain amount of relief - much like breathing fresh air after a night in a stuffy bedroom - that I read the article "My Jealousy of Atheism" by Barry Hardee.
He begins with a simple statement: "I’m admitting something that most Christians never dream of saying out loud — I’m jealous of atheists. How could you not be jealous of a position of rationality and enlightenment?"
Hardee goes on to define 'atheist' in a straightforward manner. What follows, however, rapdly descends into the murk of sectarianism - hence, the title of his article and his main thesis - he's jealous of those of us who have explained things with reason, logic, and acceptance - and left it all at that.
"The term Christian on its face value would seem to have a straight forward definition, but a visit to different churches would quickly dissuade you from such a naïve conclusion. The tent of Christendom seems to be quite large when considering the diversity of those who call themselves Christian. Consider we have John Hagee and John Paul II, Bishop Tutu and Bishop Spong, Ken Ham and Ken Miller, and even Fred Phelps and local favorite John C. The fluidity of the term Christian is shining proof of Wittgenstein’s view of language. The problem is that Christians seem to have very different views of what makes up an essential."
Hardee goes on to ask us atheists to explain to him what we view as a Christian.
To me, the question is inextricably wrapped up in the concept of rejection - defining Christianity (or any other religion) calls for either acceptance or rejection - one can't simply ask, "What is it?" The question is much the same as a researcher who finds a dynamic new microorganism; along with the identification must come some form of attempt to classify it - and part of that classification is the ultimate determination as to its danger.
Is it benign and/or beneficial - or does it have the capacity to destroy us all via infection? Researchers are placed in this position - because part of the process of microbiology is ultimately the protection of the human race.
My own background - as well as my own two-cents on the matter - is that of a man with an atheist father and Christian mother. Both were pretty pragmatic people; Mom’s approach was “if it’s not in the Bible, it doesn’t exist”, tempered with some common-sense. Dad rejected it all, having been one of the first Americans allowed in the city of Hiroshima in late 1945. (I asked him once why he didn’t believe in a ‘god’. He said, “Because I’ve seen Hiroshima.”)
In college, I studied religions alongside my requirements for an anthropology degree, and later for an advanced degree in history. What I learned was this:
Christianity is the ‘chicken’ of the religion world; the feelgood-religion of Western civilization. Apply whatever ’secret sauce’ you’d like – by selectively taking ‘ingredients’ from the Bible and mixing them up to create a creed – throw it on the grill for a while, and you have another branch of Christianity. Tastes like chicken; philosophically-speaking. Mmmm-good!
Because you can create anything you want out of it (remember, Adolf Hitler was a Catholic; much of the Nazi creed and its ceremonies were lifted in whole or in part from Catholic dogma; the Wehrmacht had a thriving chaplaincy and the words “Gott Mit Uns” [God is with us] on their belt-buckles), the only way any of us outside the confines of the Christian maze can possibly cope is to simply accept the self-identification of people who call themselves ‘Christian’.
There are no real rules. No standards. No ‘head Christian’ (although the Pope would like to be) to tell us what-is and what-isn’t. Only the endless argument of people who justify the equally-endless monstrosity, perversity, and inhumanity committed in the name of the Founder, with the equally-lame and Nuremberg-like statement, “But, they’re not real Christians!”
Joseph Goebbels wrote a play about Jesus entitled “The Wanderer” – it’s still performed today in Germany, although the authorship is usually hidden by a pseudonym; Stalin went to seminary; Jim Jones was, by some accounts, a nice guy. All of them were (with the exception of Stalin, who recanted) Christians by self-definition.
The fastest-growing group in America is that of non-believers. We’ve rejected religion in general – because it explains nothing and demands everything of its adherents – and Christianity in particular, because of the seemingly-endless contradictions, petty squabbles, and major depredations against humanity.
Inquisitions? That was a long time ago. Besides – they weren’t real Christians. Ovens? Those people weren’t real Christians, either.
Priests, buggering little boys? Yep – you guessed it.
Some of us stayed awake in class. Regardless of whether the ‘emperor-du-jour’ is Pat Robertson or Benny the Pope, he’s not wearing any clothes.
Christianity is the creation of Constantine; not because any of it is real – but because he wanted to save the Empire. In the end, the reasoned and educated among us are looking upon collective church apologists the same way a parent does a child, caught with his hand in the cookie-jar and making mile-a-minute excuses – with a mixture of humor and embarrassment for the little fellow, who is so clearly in over his head.
______________________________
Reading:
"My Jealousy of Atheism" - (Barry Hardee; Unreasonable Faith - March; 2010)
