BELIEVING

I remember asking a Jewish friend of my younger brother (when I was about 13 years old) whether or not he “believed in” Jesus. Of course, I already knew the likely answer; I was just being provocative and mean. I had decided by that young age that Jews were different, were “separate” from us Christians, even though we had known the family for years, shopped at their clothing store, and they were enormously friendly, especially to my brother.

I was being a nasty little prick, something that came easy to me.

I think about that event now and am ashamed at the memory, even at age 65. “Believing in” whatever was the phrase of choice, and it could be cruelly used to separate the accepted from the unaccepted. Looking back, what we were really asking was whether or not a person was possessed of such inane credulity that he or she could completely surrender all critical thought and accept the magical, hocus-pocus nature of what we, the majority, deemed to be real.

Now, I do not here accuse all religious persons of inanity or irrationality. I am merely describing what I subjectively expected the Jew (or whomever) to buy into when I was 13 years old. Unfortunately, I think a lot of religious persons have not matured in their thinking since THEY were 13 years old, possessed of the same sort of intolerant thinking as was I, and today, religious belief is frequently defined by intolerance of the beliefs of others. If one is possessed of knowing the One True Way, then the ways of others are perforce corrupt!

I think that is what bothers me about religion the most—the intolerance of others. The comedian, Lewis Black, says that the “9/11” terrorists (and others like them) lack a sense of humor. I agree with that. That is how I see religious belief today—a surrender of critical thought, which forces one to be tolerant, because the more one knows, the less certain one must become of one’s own conclusions.

Real scientists understand this way of thinking. I once read a definition of scientific theory as being something that could be proven wrong. With religion, it seems that most of the adherents are firmly convinced that NOTHING could be wrong with their opinions. Religious persons are absolutely convinced they know The Way. On the other hand, scientists know that if they submit their research to peer review, one of their peers may find something wrong with it. That is the risk taken, and the reward is having it thus tested and others drawing the same conclusions, unable to find error. Peer review is at the core of scientific research. Religion cannot withstand “peer review.”

Nor does religion require “peer review.” By its own definitions, it is beyond proof and research and question. Religion must be accepted “on faith.” The human mind may question, but religion requires that the answers all point in the same direction. That is just fine with me, and I am obliged by oath to defend the rights of those who embrace such, but I cannot accept the unconditional surrender of critical thought necessary to embrace religious “belief.”

I am not “anti-theist.” I know that some atheists are “anti-theist.” I think Madalyn Murray O’Hair was “anti-theist,” and she is probably the archetype of an atheist in most people’s minds, so that whenever they encounter “atheism,” they see “anti-theism.” I am an atheist, which is a loaded word, so I frequently describe myself as a “non-believer.” It is less antagonistic. I am simply “without theism.” I do not spell “atheist” with a capital “A.” I do not belong to any such organizations, and I do not proselytize and I, frankly, cannot understand how one may advocate for a belief in nothing at all! Some atheists do that; I don’t.

The personal religious beliefs of others are none of my business. I can’t prove that any believer is wrong. I can’t prove that God does NOT exist. Logically, one cannot prove a negative. I simply don’t concern myself with what others may personally believe. However, if and when there is an attempt to have MY government spend MY tax dollars and/or use MY government property to advance religion, then that is MY business. I will fight such nonsense tooth and nail.

Majorities (five out of nine Justices) on the US Supreme Court have ruled that governmental bodies may open their meetings with non-sectarian prayers, sort of a generic plea to whatever deities may be out there. They have also peculiarly ruled that Wiccans (and perhaps other “weird” religious believers) are not entitled to inclusion in official governmental prayer lists as are the “mainstream” believers in “real” deities. The Supremes have created a mighty slippery slope and have no one to blame but themselves. That all the Justices have been religious believers (currently 6 Catholics and 3 Jews) may have something to do with their tolerance for such governmental religious activity, but I believe the said majorities have misread the Constitution. I think that a majority of the Founders (not all of them) were very clear that government in the United States should be rigidly secular, so that no one gets a religious leg up on anyone else. The religious buffoons on the Supreme Court seem to utterly disregard this clear history. Besides, I don't think any God is going to take the blame for whatever elected officials do to the People's Business at government meetings!

One of the three things that Thomas Jefferson specified on his tombstone was to be known as the author of the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,” still valid law to this day, codified as Va. Code Section 57-1. Many believe the Statute to be a precursor to the federal First Amendment. It is fairly lengthy, and it contains a fairly explicit rant by Jefferson disparaging the influence of the then-dominant Anglican clergy, who were trying to get the Anglican (later Episcopal) Church established in Virginia as the “official” tax-supported church. Patrick Henry was one of the supporters, in opposition to Jefferson and James Madison.

Near the end of the Statute, Jefferson observes that later politicians will surely try to change the Statute or repeal it, but he brands such future efforts as ill-advised. For Jefferson, unyielding government secularism was preferred and is certainly reflected in the language of the Statute. True to prediction, Republican Delegate Bill Janis of Goochland County attempted, around 2007, to modify the language of the Statute by specifically authorizing the official conduct of Christian devotionals in public schools. Fortunately, that bit of idiocy, approved by the hot-headed Christian “Taliban” in the House of Delegates, was quietly quashed in the Virginia Senate.

Upon being admitted to the Virginia State Bar in 1973, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.  (So did Bill Janis, also a licensed lawyer.)  I was proud to take that oath and consider myself to be bound thereby until death, despite my having resigned my licensure as a lawyer. I am, therefore, obliged to defend the personal right of anyone to believe whatever he or she wishes to believe and to practice those beliefs with or without others. I am also obliged to resist the establishment of religion in government. One’s personal right of belief does not extend to using one’s incidental position as a government official to advance those beliefs. Former Chief Justice Roy Moore had to learn this hard lesson when he moved his big rock (bearing the engraved “11” Commandments) into the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Atheists come in all different flavors and stripes. None of us bears any more likeness to any other than do Presbyterians or Catholics or Jews. We are as different from one another as any other human group, and I know this is hard to fathom among believers. I don’t presume to speak (or write) for any other atheist. But I hope I make my own opinions very clear.