On Persecution

After the man we know as Jesus kicked the bucket, his followers had a hard road ahead. The ruling class was largely unimpressed by the alleged miracles and sought to suppress speech and action that could be seen as revolutionary or offensive to their god of choice. Early Christians would meet in secret for their safety at a kind of church speakeasy. I imagine the first rule of Christ Club was that you did not talk about Christ Club. When met with a newcommer, they faced a dilemma. Should they turn away a person of faith or reveal themselves to a potential sting operation?

I doubt what follows is the invention of the secret handshake (especially since hands aren’t involved,) but it was likely an early iteration of the concept. Here’s how it went down: A Christian would draw an arch in the sand with his sandal, then a second Christian would reveal himself as a friend by drawing an intersecting arch--making what we would recognize as the Jesus fish in the sand.

A Catholic priest told me this story. It may or may not be true. I don’t have a great track record gaining accurate information from clergy. Since this tale contains no miracles and Snopes wasn’t around back then, I’ll at least accept it’s premise. Christians were persecuted. They are still persecuted in some parts of the world, Muslim countries for example. You know who else are persecuted in Muslim countries? Atheists and Jews and, well, non-Muslims. Every minority viewpoint that runs contrary to the majority is persecuted.

What gets me is that Christians in America still say they are persecuted. Relatively speaking, that is ridiculous. We just came out of an election year where one of the more accepted-as-kooky Christian sects. Mormons, had a candidate that almost won! To the so-called persecuted Christians out there, what chance would an open atheist have had running on the Republican ticket? None. Zero. Come 2016, there isn’t a political advisor in the country, Democrats included, that would recommend coming out as atheist prior to election.

“Coming out.” We actually have a name for the reveal of our divine disbelief. Technically, we share the term with gays...who I should mention are far better represented in the media then atheists. Out of the 20 proud atheists I've interviewed, only seven use their full real name--or should I say at most seven, I haven't confirmed even those names aren't aliases. Each blogger has put a ton of time into their projects and can barely take credit of them because of the association to their real life could bring negative consequences. It's sad. And here I am, Grundy. No, my parents weren't mean enough to name me Grundy, but if they knew the extent of atheist activism I engage in, I would never hear the end of it. I am forced to live with an alias and not teach my mom how to use a computer.

If you're a put-upon Christian or make-believe martyr, I don't want to hear it. My country is one where those who don't accept a history of magic are pariahs.

How Much Must I Boycott?

Remember when everyone made a fuss over Chick-fil-A? When the gay-friendly thing to do was to eat less chicken because the head of the company voiced his opinion on who should marry whom? I was a bit torn on the issue, myself. Boycotting a business based on corporate executive editorializing seems overboard, but when it came out that a fave fast food of mine was contributing funds to anti-gay organizations...I admit, I was bummed. I hated to think that even a nickel of my $5.99 went to marginalizing a community.

I bring this up now because of a recent story that will likely matter even less to you. A comic book I’d be interested in reading has hit enough political controversy that it might not see light and will surely be delayed. The future author of the comic, Orson Scott Card, is a kooky Mormon who doesn’t support gay marriage and thinks global warming is a shame. So, does this alone mean his work should be censored?

Image via Wired.com; Chris Samnee, DC Comics

Seriously, I’m asking you. The Superman title Card will author has lost an illustrator and some distribution due to the controversy. He’s written one of my favorite books, Ender’s Game, which as an upcoming movie that will likely suffer from his views in much the same way. On one hand, I’m happy that there is public consequences for stupid beliefs because it could shame others into not believing them. On the other hand, I’d rather folks dismiss beliefs because they realize they are stupid and not simply because they are unpopular. Then again, it could be said the measure of the stupidity of a belief is a measure of how poorly they reflect the culture...which is it’s own kind of popularity contest.

I think I’ve decided to separate the work from the man. I figure if I stop using and enjoying everything that socially conservative and evangelical people produce or support--my options will become very limited. After all, it’s not like these guys were Nazi’s.

P.S. Ironically, this was written while listening to Wagner.

P.P.S. When the product and the opinions of those in charge are intermingled, I see a greater conflict. The Boy Scouts, who advertise themselves as a ethical guide for young men, should not have policies highlighting bigotry or exclusionism. Likewise, churches, with whatever moral value they may hold, should never let pedophilia slide.

P.P.P.S. Are postscripts just for letters or are blogs okay?

Gay Marriage Opponents are Bigots

It’s no secret that the religion fueled, hot button issue of the day is gay marriage. Like it's religion-fueled issue of abortion, gay marriage one of those nasty debates where generalized accusations fly based solely on one’s stance. Gay marriage supporters are endorsing immoral behavior. Gay marriage opponents are bigots on the wrong side of history. Both sides not only deny the accusations, but frame them in such a way that they no longer makes sense. I’ll argue that only one side of the issue has internally consistency.

Gay marriage supporters deny the claims by refuting the authoritative worth and/or truth of the bible, which is the only possible reason homosexual behavior can be seen as immoral. This makes me happy on a few levels. Since the America is pretty evenly divided on the morality of homosexuality, that means roughly half the population refute the authoritative worth and/or truth of the bible. Considering how many people belong to Bible-centric religions in the US, this means that most of them aren’t nearly as sold on their faith as survey data shows. They are my favorite kind of Christians--those that are Christian in name only. The most secular gay marriage supports make the accusations against them nonsensical in their warranted rejection of “sin” as a concept.

The opponents of gay marriage originally pushed that homosexuality was a choice, but this argument didn't hold up. First, there was a problem calling the majority of those who are an authority on homosexuality, gays themselves, liars. Second, there was a problem that if homosexuality is a choice, then so should heterosexuality be a choice. The straight opponents refused to accept this. Now, opponents deny claims of bigotry with their “hate the sin, not the sinner” rhetoric. Denying a person rights and branding them immoral for who they fundamentally are is the definition of bigotry, but focusing their intolerance on the one action that separates the gays from the breeders (that is, homosexual sex) is a loophole in the bigotry label--at least in their eyes.

This loophole is many things, but internally consistent isn’t one of them. Since the only way to see gay sex as immoral is by appealing to Abrahamic religious traditions, then we should measure their entire argument by the same standard. The bible repeatedly states that sins of the heart and mind are just as damning as sinful actions. Hell, it’s even in the commandments. Thou shalt not covet is an entirely separate command from thou shalt not steal. When using the bible as their guide, the unavoidable and internal homosexual attraction is just as sinful as the active and external homosexual sex act. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that gay marriage opponents are, in fact, bigots.