Three Reasons to Elect an Athiest

Andrew Sullivan makes another entry in his "Christianism Watch" this morning, on the absurdity of judging a candidate by how often he attends church.

This is symptomatic of the larger crisis we face at this point in the history of humanity.

We've reached a point at which it is not only impossible for subcultures to remain isolated, but also dangerous. We can't tackle problems like terrorism , or nuclear proliferation, or climate change, without working together and working from a common, basic, set of values—even if the area of agreement is very small.

The point of view Sullivan quotes above stands in direct opposition to that. It can be interpreted in at least two different ways. The "Christianist" in question may be either saying:

1. "We need to be sure that the President is one of us, so that he will use the power of the presidency to look after our interests as a group, and to put those who disagree with us at a disadvantage in the country."
   or...
2. "We need to be sure that the President is one of us, because our group has the Ultimate Truth. All the other groups are mistaken when they disagree with us, and it is important for everyone that the county be run by someone who knows and understands the True Facts and the True Values."

In reality, the quote probably reflects a little bit of both. The first one sounds more calculating and selfish. The second sounds more high-minded and well-meaning--it's harder to argue with.

But it's the second one that scares me, for three reasons:

1. The assumption that the group in question has a lock on the truth.
   
   This would not bother me, if the "Truth" in question was merely the existence of God, or what constitutes legitimate holy water. But fundamentalist groups rarely confine themselves to those kinds of issues. And different groups don't necessarily agree with each other.
   
   That means that the debate becomes a political fight, which destroys our ability to work together.
2. The assumption that the group has the right and responsibility to force those who disagree with them into conformance.
   
   In the near East, or in small cultural backwaters of the U.S., this may take the form of violence. But even in the political arena it is frightening.
   
   One clear example of this line of thought is the recurring demand that children be "allowed" to pray in public schools. It's positively Orwellian. The government hasn't stopped a single child from praying in school, and couldn't, even if it wanted to—especially if the child follows Jesus' excellent advice that prayer is a private matter, and should not be done publicly.
   
   No, the translation of this bizarre demand is that fundamentalists be allowed to force other peoples children to participate in prayers to the fundamentalist God.
   
   The effect of this kind of thinking is to push cultural behaviors and values that are peculiar to a sub-group into the political process, where they waste time and energy, and confuse the debate over more important issues.
3. The assumption that they have a source of knowledge that is somehow above, or beyond, the need for evidence.
   
   Once again, I have no problem with this, as long as that "knowledge" is limited to the beliefs and practices within their group. But when it isn't—when there is an attempt to change the laws of the land in order to force everyone to live according to those beliefs—it becomes essential that the beliefs themselves can be debated in public forums, and tested against real evidence.
   
   If you believe that the universe was created six thousand years ago, and want that "theory" to be taught in the public schools, and your only evidence is that a book, which your subculture has deemed to be "holy", says so (according to your subculture's interpretation), and you will admit to no evidence to the contrary, then how are you and I going to come to any agreement on the matter?
   
   If you believe in teaching abstinence, and are not willing to look at the evidence about the real world results of such teaching, how are we going to have an intelligent discussion?
   
   If your subgroup has decided (against the position of your own holy book) that a fertilized egg is a full-fledged human being, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary, and vote for anyone, no matter how incompetent or dishonest, who promises to further your cause, how are we to talk?
   
   If you interpret your book to say gays are evil, and refuse to allow any other evidence, how can we work together on real issues?
   
   It becomes a mere power struggle—whether the power is a matter of politics or violence.

In the Middle East on a daily basis, and here in the U.S. on 9/11, this kind of mentality has led to violence.

Here in the U.S. it has led to a kind of political blindness, the election of George W. Bush, the invasion of Iraq (more violence), and the dismantling of civil liberties at a time when we should be working together to make the world a safer place.

Bush would not now be president if it were not for people who thought he would force the agendas of their subculture onto the culture at large.

This particular political configuration will pass. But the larger problem will remain.

What it boils down to is a kind of group arrogance—a lack of humility, and of respect for the beliefs of others.

And it's dangerous, for everyone concerned.

At least, that's what I think today.