Preaching to the Choir

There's a lot of talk on the public radio today about the Ten Commandments in relation to displaying them in courthouses.  I find it all so irritating that this is even an issue.  By that, I mean that I have never understood the selfish mentality held by a number of (so-called) Christians that their views are so utterly nifty keen that they need to trumpet them everywhere and who get all indignant and touchy when people who disagree, well, disagree. 

It's not about keeping "religion" out of the schools/courts/government/whatever public institution pops up next.  It's about being fair.  It's about making it clear that no ONE belief system takes precedence over the others, not about banning beliefs relating to religion in general.  Now, one way to do this is to be sure to include representations of all the various beliefs held by all the members of the public who might be served by those institutions.  Given the number of belief systems in the world, this seems like an astonishingly cumbersome solution.  Plus you'd have the difficulty of finding a way to represent atheists, given that they are defined by the absence of religious belief, yet are members of the public like anyone else.

Put more simply, there are two ways of addressing the problem of giving special treatment to only one group.  One is to give everyone the same "special" treatment and thus render it ordinary.  The other is to deny everyone the special treatment.  Usually it's easier to go with the second option.  (Whether it's the best option is another question.)

That, you panties-in-a-wad 10-commandments-waving boneheads, is the reason why religious symbols are absent from public institutions.  It's not that there is no place for religion in public life.  It's that there is no place for religious favoritism.  You can show off your religious afflilations in church, by wearing symbolic jewelry to school, by preaching to random passers-by in the street, by driving your car with the little fish on it to your government job.  It is your guaranteed Constitutional right to do so. 

The thing is, you smug selfish idiots, it is ALSO the right of everyone else in this country -- including those who hold different beliefs, and those who do not have religious beliefs at all.  Public institutions are meant to be neutral ground.  Your beliefs, though I am sure they bring you comfort, are NOT neutral.  They are not Truth.  They are one group's understanding of Truth.  It is not the government's job to enable you to believe otherwise.

You are one group among many, living in a complex and diverse and changing society.  Your beliefs are no more worthy of special consideration than those of others.  Deal with it.

(And it is irritating that I even need to do this, as it should be self-evident, but I am not criticizing people for being Christians or for holding Christian beliefs.  I am criticizing selfish, touchy idiots, who in this particular instance happen to brandish their Christian identities in a righteous, thuggish way, and who can't distinguish attacks on selfishness and idiocy from attacks on their religious beliefs.  Real Christians should be mad at these idiots for tarnishing their religious reputation, not at people like me who point out that idiots are idiots, regardless of the symbols they brandish.)

Comments

[Megin]

THANK YOU for putting into words what I've been rankled over for years... I was incredibly amused, though, upon pulling into a parking lot where a "Jesus-fish" car was parked immediately next to a "Darwin-fish" car... If only I'd had my camera!

[Rana]

Hee. Next you'd need one of those Jesus-fish-eating-a-Darwin-fish ones, and then...

I have to say, for people convinced that they have a lock on Truth, these particular idiots seem awfully defensive. Shouldn't they just bask in the glow of being sure, if they _are_ sure? Why isn't knowing enough? Why do they have to try to rub everyone else's face in their smug superiority and aggressively shut down all countervailing views?

How fragile must their faith be, if it must be shored up in every aspect of life, if it is in perpetual danger of crumbling at the mere whiff of challenge?

Shouldn't one _welcome_ countering views as a test of one's faith?

[Rana]

Adding...

If I were in a more temperate mood, I'd also point out that this policy of studied neutrality is also there to protect _them_. There's no guarantee their beliefs will remain ascendant in this country, and, I would say to them, wouldn't it be nice to know that you won't someday find yourself in a court presided over by a mullah who asks you to swear on the Koran, or dealing with a skyclad DMV agent?

[Jill Smith]

Oh, dang Rana. Today you and Fred from slacktivist are writing stuff I wish I had written. Jolly good show.

[Jimbo]

Nice post. Besides being selfish, the whole idea that one religion should trump all other belief systems is hubristic. To proclaim it we must presume that we know the mind of G-d, whereas anyone who reads the Bible with any understanding (whether the text is taken literally or not) knows that one theme reiterated over and over is that the ways of G-d are beyond human understanding. The Bible also warns about following the teaching of false prophets, noting the difficulty of discerning the false from the true.

Now a person may believe that his or her belief system is the one true faith, and act according to it; yet because we cannot know the ways of G-d, we cannot know that our beliefs are in fact true. Hence, we must remain open to the possibility that G-d, assuming G-d even exists, may be other than we believe. Most assuredly, G-d will be more than we believe, because G-d transcends human understanding and the idea that G-d should be identical to our beliefs places a limit on G-d that runs counter to the idea of G-d. Any faith that proclaims priviledged access to the one true G-d is therefore only idolatry, worshiping the belief system as a god rather than Lord Almighty.

The other message that the Bible proclaims over and over is "feed the poor," which our righteous Bible thumpers of today almost always conveniently forget.

jwb

[Jimbo]

I should add that rather than feeding the poor, the Bible thumpers would nourish the poor with morals. Yes,if we must choose between feeding the body and feeding the soul, by all means we should choose the soul, because the body is only temporary and dying of starvation assures a quicker ascent to paradise.

You know sometimes I just want to scream at G-d, that G-d would allow such pain to be inflicted on people in the name of G-d.

jwb

[Rana]

Amen.

I don't mean that facetiously.

[Amanda]

I was thinking just today that if they want to display the Ten Commandments on that courthouse wall, they should also display a big Star of David, a sign with the word "Allah" written in Arabic, and some statues of Buddha and Kuan Yin and Shiva and Vishnu and (fill in further list of symbols of world religions here).

And then if the people who insisted on the Ten Commandments are uncomfortable at the sight of all these symbols of religions that aren't theirs adorning a court of law, a point will have been made. Or one would hope so, anyway.

(On a sillier note, I've seen Darwin-fish that say "GEFILTE" instead of "DARWIN." Cracks me up every time.)

[Rana]

Amanda -- exactly. I'd pay money to see the reactions, in fact.

UU Chalice, anyone?

[Chris Clarke]

I've had a couple of Darwin fish deliberately pulled off my vehicle, with no other damage done. It's obvious that their freedom to worship means, to them, freedom to force us all to fall in line.

[Rana]

As I said, it's a fragile sort of faith that can't even tolerate a silly little Darwin fish.

Besides, I've also never understood why belief in God would be incompatible with evolution. As DarkSyde (I think) put it over at PZ's -- I think a deity that can create something as complicated as the Big Bang and set it all spinning into motion across milennia, unguided, and still have it produce things like pill bugs and sea urchins and sparrows and llamas is pretty freakin' impressive.

Oh, but wait. I see. It's that ol' insecurity again. It's not enough to be a nifty spifty animal among other nifty spifty animals; apparently human beings are only of value if they are THE nifty spifty animal, specially designed to be niftier and spiftier than anything else on the planet.

A fragile faith indeed.

[wolfangel]

Well, in most places evolution and religion coexist quite happily. You can't be a biblical *literalist*, but that's about it. It's also possible to be an atheist in several religions (including Judaism), so religion really isn't incompatible with nearly as many things as some fundamentalists make it seem to be.

Also, why are llamas inherently funny? We have them on the carpet in the boardroom at work, and someone pointed it out during an interview, about how *amusing* llamas are. And we all agree -- but why?

[Rana]

I don't know, but I agree. There's something about the neck, and the big eyes, and the ears, and the little teeny legs, and the weird shapes their mouths make. Oh, and the humming and spitting are funny. (I do like llamas...)

It's probably similar to how ducks are funny. :)

[abby]

Nothing to add, other than I think that there should be pictures of llamas and alpacas everywhere, instead of the 10 commandments. More people would smile, I think.

[wolfangel]

I know a lot of people aren't so into Disney films, but I strongly suggest seeing "The Emporer's New Groove" -- llama!

We also should have more squirrels around. Squirrels amuse me.

[Rana]

Oh, that was a fun movie. :)

Llama llama duck!

Squirrels amuse me too. *grin* And I'd love to see those funky llama grins staring down at me in the DMV.

[wolfangel]

Actually, maybe we could start a new religion, and then among the images of crosses and Buddhas and everything we could have to have huge llama and squirrel statues everywhere! Who needs separation between llama and state?

[Rana]

*snrff* (Covering mouth to keep from braying with laughter at work.)

Oh, mercy. I'm already having Dalai Llama jokes popping into my head.

[wolfangel]

If you join the Church of Llama and Squirrel, you can't snort anymore, though, you need to spit. Or stuff acorns in your cheek. Priests, of course, have to do both at once.

[Rana]

Frighteningly, I _am_ pretty good at spitting. And my teeth are more like a llama's than I'm happy with.

We won't go into my squirrel-like qualities.

[Chris Clarke]

Aw, nuts.

[Rana]

*groaaaannnn*

[John Emerson]

I agree on the issue, but aren't the ten commandments Basically Jewish?

[Rana]

Well, it's not Jewish groups that are making all the fuss about removing them, even if the Commandments are. So perhaps not this version of them.

Truthfully, I don't know (and to be honest, I don't really care -- I'd be irritated no matter whose religious principles were being shoved in everyone's faces).

[Jill Smith]

Unless it was the high holy church o' llama, of course.