The bracketed section of the title has been added more recently, at about the time of the article being first annotated as having SOME non-current views. An article will be written in the future explaining what in this article I still stand by and what I no longer don’t stand by.
Of course, such a disclaimer will not appear on every single post that reflects views of mine that have since been revised – but with regards to some posts (such as this one) I feel it is especially important to make that point particularly clear. I find insertion of such notices to be more intellectually honest than simply deleting the post.
Not too long ago, I wrote an article in this blog about the key misunderstanding in the heads of those who accuse the tolerance advocated by liberals of being limited to those who agree with liberalism. In that article I explained how the kind of concession that these antiprogressives refer to as “tolerance”, which indeed liberals do withhold from antiprogressives, is not at all the same thing as the tolerance that liberals demand where marginalized minorities and general human diversity are concerned – and how the kind of tolerance that liberals demand for and extend to these marginalized groups, we do indeed extend to conservatives as well. At very least this is true as far as true liberals are concerned – and, I believe, also in the case of the vast majority of those who identify themselves as “liberal”.
Most of the feedback I got from the article was positive. A small portion, however, made a reaction that I found to be extremely disturbing. The disturbing responses ranged from one person who seemed to believe that all Christianity’s right to tolerance was forfeit due to abuses done in the name of that particular religion – to another who believed that parents should unconditionally be forbidden to take their children under a certain age to any religious services of any kind, no matter what religion, and no matter what does or doesn’t go on at those religious services. In short, while I insisted (and still insist) that liberals are tolerant to non-liberal people and their religious beliefs in the same sense of the word “tolerance” by which we demand they tolerate other groups – these people did not believe in extending even that notion of tolerance toward them.
I wish I could say that these reactions surprised me – but unfortunately, they are nothing new. For years I have seen, more times than I can count, atheists openly ridiculing people of faith – and doing so for nothing more than believing in a higher power. And while being rude and obnoxious to someone for having differing religious beliefs is not the same as actually bringing the force of law against that someone for the same reason, atheists have demonstrated the ability to do that as well in a continuum that ranges from advocating policies aimed at hindering parents from raising their children in an environment of faith (of which the instance I mentioned earlier in this article is just one example) to the outright persecution of religion as seen in the late Soviet Union.
Many atheist apologists, of course, will point out that the Soviet persecutors of people of faith were not just any atheists, but Marxist atheists – and a Leninist-Stalinist interpretation of that to boot – and as such are not representative of any inevitable behavior of atheists. This argument, of course, is one hundred percent correct, valid, and solid. Not only would I not fault atheist apologists for this argument – but I have, in the past, made it myself. The only ones I fault are those who refuse to accept the same exact argument against holding all Christians responsible for the Crusades, witch-burnings, LGBT-intolerance (of which the atheist Soviet regime was guilty as well) and other abuses done in the name of Christianity – and who similarly refuse to accept that very argument in defense of other religions as well. A few will even bundle religions in-general together in such a way that even religions at who’s hands no such violation can be found can’t escape the blame – though this would only affect religions who’s following has been extremely small, because with larger followings it’s just a statistical inevitability that some adherents are going to go rogue.
It is true, of course, that the philosophy behind Stalinism contained many ideas that are not inherent to atheism, and which many atheists do not share. However, the same is just as true of the various philosophies that have been used to commit oppression in the name of just about every religion that has been used for this purpose. It is wrong to indiscriminately lay the atrocities of Stalinist Russia at the feet of atheists. But likewise, it is just as wrong to indiscriminately lay the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity at the feet of all Christians – or anything from the 9/11 attacks to the murderous behavior of ISIS at the feet of all Muslims – or horrendous acts such as those committed by the likes of Baruch Goldstein and Yishai Schlissel at the feet of all observant Jews.
Of course, there are then those that claim that all religion is, by definition, abusive – even if a religion clearly does not support any of the fore-mentioned overt abuses. They do not limit this accusation to religions that subjugate women and condition women and girls to such subjugation – or to religions that implant in the minds of kids any of the ideas that are bound to result in any of those children who fall on the LGBT spectrum hating key parts of who they are – or who withhold necessary medical treatment for supposedly religious reasons – or who do any specific, identifiable abuses of that sort. Rather, they insist that all religions are inherently abusive, especially where children are involved, simply by virtue of being religious.
One argument brought by many who argue that religion is inherently abusive is that (according to their assertion) the concept of God is a delusion and that teaching it to small children implants their heads with delusions. The problem with this assertion is that it can only fly as an argument once the people making it have established that their premise (the notion that God is a delusion) by accepting the burden of proof (which few of them are willing to do) and then fulfilling that burden (which none have done, because proof of God’s existence or non-existence is not available).
Failing to convince pretty much anyone with this assertion on it’s own, they further their argument by asserting that religion damages the child’s ability to think for zimself by instilling in zim a fear of terrible spiritual consequence if the doctrine of the faith is questioned – and possible worldly punishment as well if zie does so openly or is otherwise suspected of doing so. While this second assertion is in fact true for some religious groups – it is, once again, a broad-brush fallacy at best to universally attribute it to all religious groups or deem it an inherent, inextricable aspect of religion. For this argument to hold any water at all, there are simply too many religious groups in which parents are content to teach their children their spiritual perspective and trust their children, once so educated, to find their own.
Another thing that many intolerant atheists charge religions with is that by teaching kids that they are sinners they teach their children to hate themselves – and that by teaching them that they need a God to save them (or do anything for them, for that matter) they instill in their children feelings of inadequacy. To address this allegation, I must point out a few ways in which the Ambiguity Fallacy rears it’s ugly head here. For starters, by just talking about religion teaching kids that they are sinners, they refer to two very different kinds of teachings. One kind of teaching suggests that people are inherently evil – that God is really pissed at them – and that the scum that they are should be grateful that they get this one last chance, all the while ashamed that they should even need that chance in the first place. Groups that teach this form of a notion of inherent sinfulness tend to direct this self-hating message most strongly at LGBT people, “uppity” women, and others who don’t fit their narrow view of how people “aught” to be – but to a lesser degree instill it on pretty much all of their adherents. Though some of the terminology used to express this is specific to Christianity, in some other form it is an issue in other religions as well.
At any rate – there is a strong case that this fore-mentioned understanding of us having a sinful nature is abusive. However, not every religion that teaches that we are inherently sinful follows this model. Some even believe that those who do are theologically cherry-picking. Another interpretation of us being inherently sinful is that we are great beings created by a loving God in Zir image – but that despite the greatness with which God created us, we are still imperfect – we still have flaws. This interpretation teaches that despite our shortcomings, God wants to help us overcome them because we are worth it – and because we have unlimited potential. While the former understanding of us being inherently sinful could very well be abusive – this latter understanding most definitely is not. Also, even an atheist should be able to appreciate that no human being on the face of the planet is without shortcomings. And I am not referring to the re-defined meaning of “atheist”. I’m talking by the conventional understanding of the term, which is, someone who positively asserts that there is no God whatsoever.
The other claim that atheists make is that by teaching that we need God for anything, that teaches us to see ourselves as inadequate, and possibly teaches complacency as well. Now – if a religion teaches people not to work to solve their problems, but just to pray pray pray – and when you’re done praying, pray some more – yes, that’s a problem. However, not only is this at best a broad-brush fallacy, it may even be a complete straw-figure fallacy – as I do not know of a single religion that actually teaches this! As for the allegation that teaching kids that abilities they have (whether they be special abilities or abilities shared with the vast majority of people) are gifts from God teaches children feelings of inadequacy – that allegation is just plain ludicrous. Again, even if you accept atheism (and, once again, I am using the conventional understanding of the term) you still (unless you have screw loose) don’t believe that your inherent abilities are self-earned.
Yes – it is indeed sound to believe that you are responsible for making the best with whatever abilities you have – as well as whatever opportunities life affords you. However – whether it comes to you as a gift from God or as your winnings in the genetic lottery and the roulette game of life – either way, the abilities and advantages you start out with come to you without you having done anything special to deserve them. To claim otherwise isn’t atheism, and certainly isn’t rationalism – but is really nothing but mere madness. Whether you are a theist or an atheist – or an agnostic for that matter – having the humility to be appreciative of whatever breaks you got in life is undeniably a virtue. To suggest that instilling this virtue in children is a form of abuse is just plain whack!
But you know what is indeed mentally abusive? Ridiculing other people for no reason other than the fact that their spiritual points-of-view are different from yours. So if you’re Christian – don’t do that. If you’re Muslim – don’t do that. If you’re an observant Jew – don’t do that. If you’re of any other religion – don’t do that. And if you’re an atheist: well that applies to you as well – don’t you do that either!
