Before I post today’s Letter, let me warn you—and no, I don’t know how you should prepare for this (just do the best you can)—I’m taking next week off. No posts at all on the week of 16-20 October. I’ll be lavishing attention on a loved one in honor of her birthday, not attending to you lot. Deal with it.
About the Friday Freethought Perennials in general: This subset of my blog is to answer questions, nearly always already answered by me and by many others but posed again and again—over many years and in many places—on freethought, atheism, secular humanism, secularism/church-state/”This is a Christian Nation,” and similar topics. These answers are mostly not intended to be original analyses, breaths of fresh air, so much as just putting a whole series of things on the record (I’d say “forever,” except I know better). One source for many of these answers is the 2012 Prometheus Books book by me and my son (Michael E. Buckner), In Freedom We Trust: An Atheist Guide to Religious Liberty (and it’s the source for this one). The book is available in many libraries and pretty readily in the used book after-market. I’ll cite writings of others that answer these things in more depth if I’m aware of them when I post these.
“If you’re not for me, doesn’t that mean you’re against me?” AND “Why isn’t it reasonable and decent to legally require you to be respectful and quiet, even, about my heartfelt religious beliefs?”
I wrote before (on 31 March—neutrality; and 21 April—blasphemy) about these matters, and this is not to change my comments in either case but to expand a bit on them.
Neutrality—“If you’re not for me, doesn’t that mean you’re against me?”
If a friend deeply believes that your very life, happiness, or even eternal existence is at stake, doesn’t that mean you should listen carefully and either accept or reject what s/he is telling you?
This is related to the old rule about civility:
Never discuss politics or religion in polite company.
And to the famous line, quoted in The Courier-Herald (of Washington State) by Richard Elfers on 27 September 2019—
“You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into” (Jonathan Swift, 1721).
It can be quite difficult to keep to strict neutrality, especially if the person trying to “save your soul” (or trying to persuade you to “stop being deluded”) is someone you really care about, someone you love.
It’s one thing to work hard for secularism, for separation of religion and government, for neutrality in law. It’s another to avoid debating someone, especially over something you both see as quite important and as ultimately irresolvable. Political discussions are somewhat more likely to be affected by evidence— “Is the economy better or worse?” has at least the possibility of evidence that you and another can agree on.
Religious differences are quite likely to be simply unresolvable, because starting assumptions are hard (impossible?) to agree on and many things connected to such discussions are not tied to evidence people will agree on.
With both politics and religion, though, emotions are likely to be entangled. Agreeing to be neutral—just not to discuss differences out of respect and affection for each—can be a quite reasonable approach, even if both of you debate vigorously in print, on social media, or in more organized forums.
With mutual respect, serious discussions of politics and religion with people who see it another way can happen and can be quite interesting and enlightening. But caution is needed—and sometimes neutrality.
Sure you’re right? Sure you know just the right book or statistic or argument or Bible verse to win the other person over? Probably the other person is about as sure to the contrary.
This isn’t chemistry: Neutrality can be quite positive.
Blasphemy—“Why isn’t it reasonable and decent to legally require you to be respectful and quiet, even, about my heartfelt religious beliefs?”
If a friend deeply believes that his very life, happiness, or even eternal existence is at stake (and those of his/her children, friends and other kin), doesn’t that mean you should at least not interfere in any way with the religious truth (as your friend sees it) that is being offered?
As with neutrality, the law is different from social rules. I oppose any laws on these matters because each of us should have the freedom to choose what religious beliefs—and what anti-religious beliefs—we think are reasonable. And because mixing the power of the state with the emotions of religion can be quite dangerous. (See my 21 April essay for more on this.)
I’d never deliberately use an expression that offended a religious neighbor or loved one. My late father-in-law, for whom I had real respect and affection, once asked me if an expression I’d used at their house is one I’d’ve used at my parents house. I had to admit I was careful when there not to say it—and, chagrined, I avoided saying it at the in-laws, too. He was right and I was wrong, not because I used the expression, but because I didn’t pay attention to where I said it. Social context matters.
Insulting people you care about over differences in religious belief is rude but also quite likely foolishly counterproductive. People hardly ever change their minds about deeply held beliefs—and the probability goes down if they get their backs up.
And I would not take the initiative and try to challenge the religious beliefs of my neighbor’s children, either. If one of them of a reasonably mature age—12? 16?—asked me about my beliefs or lack of them, I might reply, but even then in a truthful but limited way. If a 6-year-old asked me why I don’t “believe in Jesus,” say, I would only answer with the explicit permission of the parents.
When my son—very much grown now, of course—was 5 or 6 years old, a relative attempted to send him books of Bible Stories for Young People and the like. These were vapid and simple-minded enough that most Christians I know would find them silly or worse. My relative assured me that she was just trying to make sure Michael got “exposed to Christianity”—as if her religion wasn’t pushed pervasively in our culture (especially 4 or 5 decades ago). I had some pro-atheist materials sent to her address, so her children would be “exposed to atheism.” She sent no more stuff on Christianity to Michael and of course I stopped my bad behavior, too.
Social norms, within reason, should dissuade all of us from pointlessly debating beliefs, however important we might think those beliefs are, in social settings.
And no, that image of a quilt above doesn’t have anything to do with this Letter. I just like it. See you on Monday the 23rd.
Note: Anyone may copy and publish what I or my guests write, provided proper credit is given, that it’s not done for commercial purposes, that I am notified of the copying (you can just leave a comment saying where the copy is being published), and provided that what we write is not quoted out of context or distorted
Christianity and Islam always has to preach at others. Those religions are inherently missionary. That's why they're always bothering everybody. "Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference" (Edmund Burke). Another interesting article.