A Mixed Feeling
Jul. 2nd, 2018 03:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastOkay, yesterday I gave a thought that was quick (not that quick, I mean, it was put into words by me) thought in support of this past Saturday's protests, both in the specific and in the general purposes thereof of what we were supporting and what we were opposing. I do have one mixed feeling on the topic and, boy, is it mixed.
One of the speakers at the protest in the small gathering in my smallish town was a preacher who, as a part of an interfaith alliance, made clear reference to the non-religious support along with that of varying religions. One of the speakers is running for Congress and made clear reference to the Prophet Micah and the duty to, among other things, "walk humbly with the Lord", not making any note of concession towards the non-religious.
That latter one speaker is a bit of a sticking point with me. I am one of those non-religious of whom the man seeking election failed to even acknowledge as a passing thought. And, I get it.
Factor number one is that, even as we're seeing a rise in the demographic of "nones", Christianity is still a majority in the US. References to religious faith aren't going to provide much cost but are going to provide benefit.
Factor number two is that they attempt to avoid political cost. The other side of this argument is held by people who claim ownership and, indeed, sole representation of Christianity. They swiftly call anything that doesn't fall into their line a hostility to their faith. So, peppering one's speech with reminders that "I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm in fact, acting according to Christian values" is as much necessary as it is ignored by the ideological opposition.
And, both of those are in addition to Factor number three, which is that most of the people making these references to Christianity are, in fact, Christians.
So, I get the value of making those references. But, then there are the Other Factors.
Other factor number one is that we non-Christians are here and are equal members of this nation. The law should respect those of us who don't share that faith just as much as it respects those who do. The argument for or against certain legislation shouldn't depend upon shared faith or even familiarity with a faith.
Other factor number two is that those same forces that will act as though they're the only Christians, regardless of all other factors, will also claim that those of us who aren't Christians aren't as much members of this society as they are. Giving into that doesn't make them accept that you are a Christian, because they won't acknowledge that... until they can use that as yet another example of how America is "A Christian Nation based in Christian Values".
And there's a basic element of privilege to contend. Other factor number three is that the members of other faiths don't get to use references to their faith in their campaigning and legislative arguments. Muslims in office in America don't get to hold national rallies where they reference the Koran. As an atheist who's moral philosophy most aligns with Humanism, references to The Humanist Manifesto (which, admittedly, I haven't read) will cost me in chances of getting elected.
As an atheist, I do want to reach a point in America where I am more accepted. Yet, as I am otherwise the overlap-zone in a Venn Diagram of privileges, I know that there are other issues that are much more dire. So, I get it, you have to do what you have to do in order to get the right people elected and make the case for the right causes. Atheists, though facing discrimination in America, aren't as vulnerable as many groups.
At the same time, I really don't like making a step back for myself. I long for some means of making steps forward (or avoiding a steps backward into concentration camps) for others without having to take a step back for myself.
So, I'm good with being on what I believe to be the right side of this. I just have this small bit of mixed feeling that, I hope, something can be done about... at least when we have the time.
One of the speakers at the protest in the small gathering in my smallish town was a preacher who, as a part of an interfaith alliance, made clear reference to the non-religious support along with that of varying religions. One of the speakers is running for Congress and made clear reference to the Prophet Micah and the duty to, among other things, "walk humbly with the Lord", not making any note of concession towards the non-religious.
That latter one speaker is a bit of a sticking point with me. I am one of those non-religious of whom the man seeking election failed to even acknowledge as a passing thought. And, I get it.
Factor number one is that, even as we're seeing a rise in the demographic of "nones", Christianity is still a majority in the US. References to religious faith aren't going to provide much cost but are going to provide benefit.
Factor number two is that they attempt to avoid political cost. The other side of this argument is held by people who claim ownership and, indeed, sole representation of Christianity. They swiftly call anything that doesn't fall into their line a hostility to their faith. So, peppering one's speech with reminders that "I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm in fact, acting according to Christian values" is as much necessary as it is ignored by the ideological opposition.
And, both of those are in addition to Factor number three, which is that most of the people making these references to Christianity are, in fact, Christians.
So, I get the value of making those references. But, then there are the Other Factors.
Other factor number one is that we non-Christians are here and are equal members of this nation. The law should respect those of us who don't share that faith just as much as it respects those who do. The argument for or against certain legislation shouldn't depend upon shared faith or even familiarity with a faith.
Other factor number two is that those same forces that will act as though they're the only Christians, regardless of all other factors, will also claim that those of us who aren't Christians aren't as much members of this society as they are. Giving into that doesn't make them accept that you are a Christian, because they won't acknowledge that... until they can use that as yet another example of how America is "A Christian Nation based in Christian Values".
And there's a basic element of privilege to contend. Other factor number three is that the members of other faiths don't get to use references to their faith in their campaigning and legislative arguments. Muslims in office in America don't get to hold national rallies where they reference the Koran. As an atheist who's moral philosophy most aligns with Humanism, references to The Humanist Manifesto (which, admittedly, I haven't read) will cost me in chances of getting elected.
As an atheist, I do want to reach a point in America where I am more accepted. Yet, as I am otherwise the overlap-zone in a Venn Diagram of privileges, I know that there are other issues that are much more dire. So, I get it, you have to do what you have to do in order to get the right people elected and make the case for the right causes. Atheists, though facing discrimination in America, aren't as vulnerable as many groups.
At the same time, I really don't like making a step back for myself. I long for some means of making steps forward (or avoiding a steps backward into concentration camps) for others without having to take a step back for myself.
So, I'm good with being on what I believe to be the right side of this. I just have this small bit of mixed feeling that, I hope, something can be done about... at least when we have the time.
no subject
Date: 2018-10-01 08:35 pm (UTC)Right now, when the people ramming through the evil deeds are not just Christians at the same rate as everyone else, but are highly enriched for Christians, it just hurts to hear Christianity put forward as the motivation for doing right. It upsets and confuses me and distracts me from the valid message of the march. But at the same time, I'm not the one whose family is being broken up. So I kept quiet.