The U.S. vs. the ungodly

It's one thing to read something like this:

A Gallup poll last year showed that, while 9 per cent of Americans would not vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, 22 per cent wouldn’t support a Mormon and 32 per cent would not vote for a gay or lesbian candidate, 49 per cent would refuse to back an atheist for president.

It's a shocking statistic. Yet it somehow doesn't convey the real meaning of the numbers, not the way these simple vignettes from atheists in the Bible Belt do.

“I’ve been told things like ‘I hope you have an accident, die and go to hell.’ So that’s what I’ve been up against.”

...

“I used to be a good running friend with somebody who doesn’t live far from here. I mentioned on one occasion that I was an atheist and I’ve never seen him again.”

Julian Baggini's piece "In God We Must: Why won't the U.S. accept its atheists?" (courtesy of Slate, originally from the Financial Times) is full of statistics and stories. So many of both, in fact, that it's a little overwhelming. The article is an eye-opener, and while the view stinks, at least now we know where we stand with respect to the devout.

Given all of this, you might think followers of other religions, such as Muslims and Jews, would be just as threatening. But that does not seem to be so. “People might not like the Buddhists and Mormons but at least they feel like they’re people who believe in a higher power and that confirms their beliefs,” says Johnson. “But somebody like an atheist, it just throws their beliefs into their face.”

David Silverman, president of American Atheists, concurs: “We challenge the whole concept that you can’t be good without God. We challenge the idea that religion is important in the first place, and that really makes them uncomfortable.”

I'm mindful of the words of Harold Bloom, from his book The American Religion (published in 1992):

Where there is overwhelming religious desire, there must also be religious anxiety, for which the pragmatic name is Fundamentalism, the great curse of all American religion, and of all religion in this American century. Fundamentalism, strictly considered, is an attempt to overcome the terror or death by a crude literalization of the Christian intimation of immortality. ... [Fundamentalism] is the shadow side of what is most spiritual and valuable in the American Religion.

(p. 39)

Here, perhaps, is the root of the trouble.

A report from the Pew Research Center last November showed that 53 per cent of Americans say it is necessary to believe in God to be moral.

I find the image of human beings implied by this viewpoint to be extraordinarily unattractive. It suggests that sin, to use the Christian term, is so intractable that human beings require an omniscient policeman constantly looking over their shoulders to stay on the straight and narrow.

Compared to the aforementioned 53 percent, this misanthrope's outlook on his fellow man is indecently sunny.

I, after all, consider myself living proof that believing in a deity is not necessary to lead a moral life. Human beings can find the wherewithal to live without harming their fellows, which is how I define morality.

The worst part of the intolerance is, it keeps atheists "in the closet", as Baggini's piece illustrates over and over. Here is, perhaps, his most poignant example: the words of an Alabama woman.

“Being on crack, that was OK. As long as I believed in God, I was OK.” So, for example, “I’m not allowed to babysit. I have all these cousins who need babysitters but they’re afraid I’ll teach them about evolution, and I probably would.” I couldn’t quite believe this. She couldn’t babysit as an atheist, but she could when she was on crack? “Yes.”

To say this woman's family has its priorities royally screwed up is ... well, it's so obvious, it almost doesn't bear stating at all.

When you believe that Darwin is more dangerous than drug addition, you are not thinking straight.

If you think evolutionary biology is part of a Satanic plot to put your children's souls in jeopardy, you have let religion gain too great a hold on your life. You need to take a time-out and do some serious thinking about what kind of example you're setting for those children. You also need a serious and thorough remedial course on what science is. The same basic biology underlies not merely evolution, but medical science -- like what your pediatrician practices. If you trust the latter is beneficial, you really have no reason to mistrust the former. Otherwise, you should have the moral fiber to follow the example of the Amish, who forsake modernity to hold onto their religious principles.

You devoutly godly folk should ponder one more thing: perhaps the reason more people than ever are describing themselves as "unaffiliated" with any religion is that fewer and fewer religions are making it inviting to be devout. Your attitude toward atheists is merely one manifestation of the intolerance you exude.

For religions supposedly founded on a gospel of love, that might be considered unfaithful to their original spirit.