What do you get when you mix a straight atheist libertarian (me), a gay atheist psychiatrist liberal (my uncle), his Christian husband, a straight female Episcopal priest, and her Christian husband? Not only is it one of the most bizarre mixes of mostly non-blood-related folks (except my uncle and I) ever to sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, but it makes for some very interesting conversation.
My uncle's husband goes to an Episcopal church in Massachusetts. We were all invited to his priest's home for Thanksgiving dinner, so that's how we spent the holiday.
I grew up in a Christian family and attended a variety of churches as a child, depending on where my father happened to be playing the organ on any given Sunday. By the time I was seven years old, we had chosen an Episcopal church for our "home" church, and I was baptized there when I was eight.
First, let me say that as an atheist myself, I am often shunned by atheists who believe that Christians (or any other religionists) are to be avoided at all costs. Many atheists/non-believers focus on the damage that has been done by people in the name of religion and are thusly quite hostile toward religion itself and the people who are involved with it in any way.
I went through that stage myself, but at some point, I outgrew it. To put it in perspective, I am very saddened by the damage people often do to one another with guns. However, I do not see the logic in hating guns, nor do I see the logic in avoiding all people who keep guns in their home. I recognize that some use their guns for their own safety and protection, and do not associate them with those who use guns to rob liquor stores.
Perhaps an even better analogy: I recognize that sex is an integral part of human nature. We are hard-wired for it. Men and women alike experience sexual desire even when neither is able to reproduce. The urge for sex is purely physiological in this case, and serves no purpose beyond the physiological benefits derived from chemicals produced in the body/brain in the process.
Similarly, religion is actually something for which humans are hard-wired. Despite the fact that I do not agree with his point of view 100%, Matthew Alper, author of The God Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God
, makes that point quite eloquently. The fact that religious belief and behavior is a very basic instinct and that there may be some adherents who become aggressive and violent towards others as a result in no way makes the religious less intelligent or more dangerous in and of itself, any more than someone who indulges in non-reproductive sex is more likely to rape someone simply because they are giving in to primal urges. It is foolish to associate every religious person with terrorists who blow up airplanes and commit mass murder.
Similarly, while I am disgusted by the many tragedies inflicted on the human race by religionists throughout history, I recognize that religion comes from our need to assign explanations to things we do not understand, and I recognize that, as humans, our psychological ability to see things clearly and avoid losing our perspective when getting caught up in cultural rituals is in a very early stage of evolution, and that each individual is also in a different stage of that evolution.
For that reason, I tend to ignore those who, like me, are without belief and call themselves atheists, but criticize me simply because I do not always feel extremely uncomfortable around or isolate myself from every person having anything to do with religion as they seem to need to do. Anyone who is unable to function in the presence of those who are religious simply because they themselves are atheists have made atheism their religion, and I tend to feel more uncomfortable around those people than I do around those who practice other religions. Religion (using the "scrupulous conformity" definition) is something I try to avoid regardless of what form it may take.
Having explained my position on religion, let's look at some of our similarities and differences as discussed at the table. (You might expect that many disagreements would arise, but it turns out that, for the most part, we all see things very similarly.)
All five of us present shared a concern for terrorism issues and public safety. However, on this issue I was the odd one out, since I am a libertarian and not comfortable with unreasonable searches for any reason, especially when the goal is not actually reached by said unreasonable search.
The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You'll notice that I have highlighted the "persons" and "probable cause" in the above statement. Many people seem to have forgotten that a) you have a right to privacy (in America) of your PERSON, regardless of where you are, either at home or in public, and b) the requirement for probable cause is not met in random, invasive searches at airports. The fact that one is attempting to board a plane in no way implies that they are likely to be carrying weapons or that there is probable cause for a search.
The problem I have with the whole "airport security" ruse, is that, even if there is no ill-intent on the part of our government or the T.S.A., there is a natural movement in the direction of any government action that tends to beget more restriction on freedom, and when you allow a little here and a little there, it starts at the airport, and it ends up in your home.
What difference is there in being forced to submit to an unreasonable search at the airport in the name of security and being forced to submit to an unreasonable search in your home in the name of security? After all, I'm sure that somewhere in America, terrorists are being harbored in someone's home. Giving safe harbor to a fugitive from justice or a terrorist is a crime. The fact that someone is doing it, by the same logic people are giving for forcing unreasonable searches at the airport, also gives credibility to the argument that every home in America should be subject to search randomly and without probable cause, just in case someone might or could possibly be harboring a fugitive or terrorist. Sorry, but that bread doesn't fit in my toaster.
It's not that I don't trust my government or the American individual serving on behalf of the government and their intent. It's that I recognize our tendency to allow things to get out of perspective in our minds and out of hand in our reality. We can't just arbitrarily draw the line at not allowing unreasonable searches in our homes. Either you allow unreasonable searches in the name of security everywhere, or you require probable cause everywhere. Probable cause is the ONLY protection you will EVER have against anyone invading your privacy in the name of safety or in the name of justice. If you are an American, you value your privacy. If you value your privacy, you must be diligent in protecting it, even from well-meaning gov-bots trying to feed their families by invading it in the name of safety and "your own good".
I was also the odd one out on the issue of taxes and government programs to help feed the poor and provide health care and other basic needs. While we all five agreed that it is the right thing to do to help those who can not help themselves, and while we all five share the desire to do so, I am pretty sure that I was the only one who is not comfortable giving that power and responsibility to the government, and here is why I see it that way:
First, I believe that it is very cynical (and it makes me very sad) to imply that the only way Americans are able to achieve our goals of helping others is to force everyone to do it by taking money from their paychecks. That is one of the things I dislike about religion, since it is based on the belief that the only moral compass available to humans is through a religious text designed to control the population, rather than our own inner moral-compass and conscience. Creating laws to force people to help others takes away not only our freedom to choose by which means we choose to provide for those who are in need of assistance (more efficient vs. less efficient, hands-on vs. hands-off) but it also tends to create apathy in the minds of those who have become accustomed to letting "other people" worry about "that kind of thing", rather than staying in touch with the humanitarian aspects of being involved on a personal level.
Those of us who have so many taxes taken from our paychecks that we can not afford to take time off from work in order to serve at a soup kitchen, for example, or choose to help a specific family who just lost their home and possessions in a fire, are cheated out of the most valuable aspect of service: the personal connection and bond created within the community and society in general when individual choice is made and action taken.
Furthermore, there are many reasons why government programs are less desirable than private organizations and their programs.
Several years ago, I completed a certificate program at the University of Tennessee in Non-Profit Management. I also completed studies in government grant-writing. One of the main focuses in non-profit management is making sure goals are met as efficiently as possible, while also ensuring that efficiency does not come at the cost of effectiveness. Diligent efforts must be made to ensure that the client (recipient of aid) who has the need is actually having the need met in a meaningful way, as opposed to simply handing out benefits to anyone who writes the correct answers on an application for assistance. (ala our government programs).
When it comes to grant-writing, I learned that the organization receiving the grant is limited in the way that they are allowed to use the funds to the point that effectiveness is often sacrificed. How much better would it be for Americans to choose the most efficient, effective organizations which they support with their own personal donations than to have the government assume that they are too apathetic, lazy and stupid to do so and make the decisions for them based, not on the reality of situations being addressed, but on paperwork often misrepresenting the true needs of the organizations attempting to assist those in need.
I have seen charitable organizations forced to restructure their entire operations in order to be eligible for specific government grants, only to be refused funding or, upon receiving funding, find themselves unable to help those most in need because they do not represent the right ratio of demographics and/or other criteria.
Furthermore, government assistance agencies are often made up of apathetic employees who are only showing up to work in order to collect benefits and pay far out of line with what is available to employees in the free market. As a result, they, themselves, are often the recipients of more taxpayer supported benefits (in the form of out-of-line wages/employee benefits) than anyone being served by their agency. What's worse, the government agency is guaranteed funding regardless of how badly they manage funds and/or implement programs, while organizations that are supported by private donations are required to strive for ever-higher standards of service and efficiency in order to earn the continued support of their private donors. That alone is reason enough to motivate any thinking country to move away from government mandates and toward private solutions.
I also find it ironic that there are many religious folks involved with helping those in need through the church and its programs, yet so many are also for giving the government the power and responsibility for doing the same thing. Religious or not, churches and/or secular/atheist non-profits are much better at helping people than governments, if only because they have a more community-oriented way of doing so and because of the difference in the way the aid is received by the beneficiary. Receiving benefits from a generic government agency creates a sense of entitlement. Receiving aid from a church or non-profit tends to create an attitude of gratitude.
I think we can all agree, entitlement begets dependence and laziness, while gratitude begets motivation and a sense of well-being, both essential to picking oneself up by the boot straps and overcoming whatever hardship has befallen the individual.
Interestingly, I sensed that all five of us present at the table agreed more on religion than anything else. One of the people at the table who is a Christian clearly does not know or care whether the supernatural claims made in religious texts are true and/or accurate, but is more focused on the service aspect of religion. It is more a cultural practice than a belief in the supernatural that motivates many people to be so involved in their church, and many atheists forget that.
We discussed how some religious folks use their religious texts to exclude and hate others, and the Christians present were just as disgusted by this as we atheists were. The priest shared how she had received several e-mails from a former church member complaining that she would not return to the church unless and until they removed the rainbow flag from the collection of banners flying in front of the church. This complainant also went on to compare the rainbow flag to the confederate flag, failing to notice the difference between an exclusionary/exclusive flag representing hate of others and an inclusive flag representing acceptance and letting a specific group know that they are welcome.
We also discussed the fact that I have a family member who is a victim of some deplorable practices by the Catholic church, and how I've always found it ironic that the Catholic church, so traditionally un-accepting of homosexuals, seems to have so many homosexual pedophiles in their ranks. Ironic is perhaps not the word so much as hypocritical.
All of us present at the table share the same moral values (do no harm to others, help others unable to help themselves, make your life count for something). The only significant difference is that I, as an atheist, do not put my moral values in the same container as supernatural beliefs and call it by a religious name.
Still, the fact that religious folks, some of whom do not believe in the supernatural any more than I, find comfort in rituals and traditions and wisdom in stories found in religious texts, makes them no more or less moral than any atheist, and no more delusional or unintelligent than any atheist.
There are political extremists and religious extremists, and neither politics nor religion are going away. If we are to grow as a species, we are going to have to learn not to blame the label or the person wearing it, but the behavior of the individual choosing to misuse the cultural association as a vehicle for their insanity and destruction to be inflicted on others.
There are people who are so into their "gaming" fantasies that they sometimes commit atrocities upon other humans in real life. This does not equate for a need to eliminate fantasy games. It equates to a need to encourage more human interaction and less reasons to avoid it. Getting the government out of our lives as much as possible is a start. Reaching out to others in meaningful ways and eliminating attitudes and behaviors that amount to character assassination based on assumptions, lies, politics or prejudice will build momentum and speed toward the ultimate finish line of the better world we all claim to seek.
The origins of America were about a variety of people coming together for a common goal born of a desire to be free of interference from a religion-oriented government that forced itself on all citizens. Today, I celebrate Thanksgiving with the hope that more of us will adopt the common goal of ensuring that we can be free of as much government interference as possible so that we may continue to make our own choices and create room for more improvements in all aspects of our lives according to the people inhabiting our country, not according to bureaucratic paperwork, the expense of which could itself have fed, clothed and cared for many people.
The five of us didn't all agree on the best means for achieving our goals, but we are clearly all caring, intelligent, kind, moral folks sharing similar goals for ourselves and the world we inhabit.
Five people of differing political and religious views, sexual preferences, and representing ages ranging throughout several decades sitting down to celebrate our gratitude and I can honestly say that it was one of the most enjoyable Thanksgiving celebrations I have ever experienced. Who knew?
A.
