Thursday, December 06, 2007

What's an Atheist to do?

I was wrong about missing Romney's speech. We were so late getting started this morning that I did actually listen to it. It was, I concur, a great speech, well-written, well delivered, well thought out. Of course it didn't tell you anything about Mormonism or Romney's participation in it. One thing it did do, unlike John Kennedy's Catholic speech, is insist there is no separation of church and state. I found this a bit disturbing. Also disturbing was his statement that one's religion should not keep him from office. This was disturbing only because he himself had already dismissed Muslims from his cabinet on the grounds that they were a minority and should perhaps be allowed to serve only in a "lower" capacity. I also found it a bit hard to take when he insisted he believed in his religion but did not offer to tell us anything about it. You notice, as I predicted, he did not even mention the Book of Mormon.

In all this talk and folderol about whether a Mormon should be President, or a Catholic, or a Muslim, or whether religion should even be considered at all, omits for me a far more basic question that doesn't even arise (in polite company, I guess). Should a candidate's religious beliefs have anything to do with his potential Presidency. The answer we are being given is "no," it should be irrelevant. I disagree. Let me speak bluntly. I think a candidate's religious beliefs might well be critical in assessing his qualifications for the Presidency. For example, if a candidate claims he believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, I have to conclude that he/she is grossly uninformed and thereby ignorant. He or she might also be considered stupid (there is a difference between being ignorant and stupid). Similarly, if a candidate says they don't believe in evolution that, too, indicates to me a disturbing lack of knowledge and/or stupidity. I do not want such a person to be President of my country.

So what is a poor decrepit old Atheist to do? I have never found the beliefs of any organized religion something I could believe in. I do not believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, Noah built an ark for all the animals, someone parted the Red sea, and so on. Indeed, I think such beliefs on the part of those who claim to a literal interpretation of the Bible to be absurd. I can have no respect or confidence in someone who professes to believe this. Likewise, if someone claims that dinosaurs existed simultaneously with humans, I think they are not only misinformed but inexcusably ignorant and/or stupid. I do not want such a person to be my President. And, while I don't mean to be rude or inconsiderate, I must admit that if someone believes their underwear is sacred I find their judgment to be questionable at best. If someone believes Intelligent Design is on the same level of explanation as the theory of evolution I, again, suspect their brainpower. Thus I do not believe for one moment that a person's religious beliefs are necessarily irrelevant to whether or not they should hold high public office. The battle here, and it is, I believe, a battle of sorts, is not between Mormons and Catholics, or Protestants and Jews, or Muslims and Buddhists, or whatever, but between those who believe in science and scientific evidence and those who believe in what are basically fairy tales. I am not familiar with the Book of Mormon or many Mormon beliefs, but I know there are some that I could never believe in.

I am not a student of religion. I confess to being ignorant of most religions. But when their arguments involve things like whether one should wear a white cap or a black cap, or whether one should be allowed to play a musical instrument or not, or whether there is a trinity or not, or whether the Jews killed Christ or not, or is Jesus the son of God or not (assuming that Jesus even existed), or whether you should eat fish on friday, or use only horse carriages, or circumsize, or examine the entrails of chickens for omens, or fast for visions, or face mecca so many times a day, or go to church on sunday as opposed to saturday, and on and on and on, I think somehow the important questions are not being addressed. I do not believe people speak directly to God or vice-versa, no exceptions. Unlike our perfect Mr. Romney I do not believe one must be a Christian to be an American.

If people wish to believe in bizarre beliefs of all kinds and call them religious I can't see there is much harm in it (or much good, either) as long as they are private beliefs and no one attempts to force them on others. While it can be argued that Christian missionaries have done good things around the world I know from personal experience they have also done incalculable harm. The history of Christianity is not pretty. I believe with John Kennedy there is an ABSOLUTE separation of church and state and I do not believe we should allow Romney, Huckabee, or anyone else to proclaim otherwise. I think Romney's clever speech may very well inspire people to examine Mormon beliefs more carefully, and if they do, I think Romney may well be finished.

For me an Atheist is someone who does not, and cannot, believe in the tenets of any organized religion. There is a question here, however, that I cannot yet completely resolve. There is an Edward Curtis print of an American Indian with a buffalo skull offering a prayer to the Great Mystery. While I am suspicious of the efficacy of prayer, I cannot deny the presence of a Great Mystery which I find truly awesome. I can't say that I actually worship this Great Mystery but its presence is never far from my mind. Am I an Atheist?

LKBIQ:
"I count religion but a childish toy,
And hold there is no sin but ignorance."
Christopher Marlowe

1 comment:

Jay River said...

Curtis noticed that Indians believed in many Gods. Most were centered around food and crops... basic needs of man.

Curtis's work reverberates on through history because he knew how to capture character and soul on camera.

He has, however, turned into a subject of controversy because of the tug of war between documentary and art.

I think the images speak for themselves.

You might find it interesting that there is a film of Curtis's 'Indian Picture Opera', found on Amazon. It reflects, in his own words, about the people he spent many years observing. I think it makes his legacy less confusing, and filters out the noise of the last century.

================