A political blogger’s pledge

This is courtesy of GreenGeekGirl:

The pledge:

“As a responsible citizen, I pledge to avoid all inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda, including violent rhetoric, unfair comparison of people with whom I do not agree to atrocities such as the Holocaust simply because we do not agree (unless, such as in the case of the Arizona laws where immigrants have to carry their “papers” at all times, such a parallel is historically warranted), immature and childish name-calling, and to use a minimum of unnecessary sarcasm.

As an American, I pledge not to center my political blogs around conservative vs. liberal in order to avoid deepening the divide between political groups.  Instead, I will focus on ideas and not make mass generalizations about groups of people.

As a blogger and a writer, I pledge to do my best to try to see both sides of an argument, even if I initially think that the other side isn’t worth considering (and even if this conclusion persists through exploration).

As a friend and neighbor, I pledge not to let differences in ideology interfere with my ability to see other people as human beings, even when we disagree or when they start name-calling, using unnecessary sarcasm, or using bad logic.

As a person, I pledge to be as compassionate as I can.

I am human and humans are prone to making mistakes and forgetting pledges.  To anybody who is reading, if I break this pledge, I want you to call me out on it (but as Wil Wheaton says, don’t be a dick).

We may differ politically, but you are not my enemy.”

Overall I like this pledge, hence why I’m following GGG’s lead and taking it on my blog, though I do have a reservation. I’m really not sure how to say this, because I feel it will make people instantly think I’m a bad person, which upsets me, but I’m not sure I entirely agree with the bit:

“As an American, I pledge not to center my political blogs around conservative vs. liberal in order to avoid deepening the divide between political groups.  Instead, I will focus on ideas and not make mass generalizations about groups of people.”

I understand the sentiment, especially the second half about not making mass generalizations, though in practice avoiding generalizations is extremely hard to do. I think there are varying degrees of generalizations, some more appropriate than others. For example, the generalization “All republicans want to install a theocracy” would be very over reaching and inappropriate. Sure faith and religion are on average more central to republicans (that’s an ok generalization), however there is a very specific, albeit very large and powerful, group within the republican party that wants a theocracy. The rest of the republicans don’t.

I mentioned the problems with generalizations in an earlier post here, though that post was focused on religious generalizations. In order not to be paralyzed by precision, some degree of generalization is required. So can I in good faith pledge to avoid generalizations? I cannot. I can, however, pledge to try and not making unnecessarily over reaching generalizations.

Now on to the first part of the bit I have a reservation about:

“As an American, I pledge not to center my political blogs around conservative vs. liberal in order to avoid deepening the divide between political groups.”

Again, I lament that people might think me a bad person for saying this, but I honestly cannot agree to this. It is my firm conviction that liberals and conservatives are two groups with irreconcilable ways of perceiving the world. Now before you judge and condemn me, understand that I do NOT mean that liberals and conservatives can’t live together peacefully. I do NOT mean that one group of people is evil. I do NOT mean that there are no circumstances under which conservatives and liberals can work together.

All that I mean by that is conservatives and liberals put different priorities on different values. We both are capable of love and compassion, just as we are both capable of fear and hate. We both want our friends and family to live in a better world, however, we have fundamentally opposing ideas of what that “better world” is or how to get there. Liberals and conservatives have fundamentally different views on the role of government, the importance and deference to place on certain types of authority, how the constitution should be interpreted, personal and economic freedoms, etc.

While these views are incompatible, we by no means should we ever resort to violence as a way of settling the disputes, and that is the main sentiment of this pledge that I whole-heartedly agree with. While I may fiercely disagree with someone, I will never allow that to take away their humanity.

How would you feel if there was no god?

This is directed at theists who might stumble across this post.

One of the most common accusations leveled against atheists are that they’re angry, so angry. For many of us that’s true, we are angry. Yet in order to understand why we’re so angry, let me ask you something.

Lets pretend for a moment, a little thought experiment if you will. I promise it won’t hurt or do anything to your faith, it’s just an experiment.

Imagine that you died, it doesn’t matter how, only that you’re now dead, and the afterlife is not what you were promised. Instead of heaven or closeness to some deity, you are made aware of the fact that their is no god, there never was. You look down at the earth, all the people on it, all the things we do to ourselves and each other in the name of a god; a god you have just learned never existed.

How would you feel? How would you react to the magnitude of the consequences and implications?

Sure you would see some good things being done in the name of this mythical god, but what about all the suffering? Suffering that is needlessly prolonged by those claiming to act in the name of a god you just learned never existed.

How would you react to this revelation’s implications? Think of all the time spent in pointless prayer instead of action, all the money spent building monuments and structures to a nonexistent being. All the money that lines the pockets of those who claim to speak for this being. What about all the wars, genocides, book burnings, shootings, suicide bombings, the death in perpertrayed in the name of this non-existent being? What about all the people who are forced to marry those they don’t love because of religious prescriptions? What about the millions of people who have their genitals cut in keeping with religious commandments? What about the honor killings? What about all the people who were forced to live in a miserable marriage, perhaps where they were even beaten, because their faith frowned on divorces?

How would you feel?

What about your life? What if you spent a large amount of time, effort, and money investing in something you later found out to be a scam? What dreams could you have accomplished if those energies were directed elsewhere? What about those things you denied yourself that you could have enjoyed? What about foods or drinks you refused to try for ultimately pointless religious reasons? What opportunities to live did you turn down in preparation for death, only to find now that you’re dead, those preparations futile, those opportunities gone forever?

Hypothetically, as all these realizations hit you like a tsunami, how would you feel as you slowly fade to nothingness?

I’m willing to bet you would feel an intense anger, possibly betrayal.

Hold that feeling in your mind for a moment. Now imagine that you weren’t fading to nothingness, that you weren’t dead. Imagine you were still alive, yet with this knowledge, and now you had the chance to do something about it. How would you feel? What would you do?

If you answered that you’d be angry and outspoken in your efforts to make the world a better place and end suffering, then you now understand where a lot of “angry” atheists are coming from.

Atheist anger and the strategy for taking over the world

I had an epiphany of sorts while lying in bed this morning: I’m never going to win by being angry all the time, and trying to reason with fundamentalists is pointless… This is something that is going to take a while for me to grasp since I’ve been so angry for so long. I feel my anger has alienated friends, and worst of all caused some tensions with my significant other…

But what can I say? I have good reasons to be angry. I’m viewed as immoral by a good chunk of the religious populous, I’m barred from holding office in five states, some view Atheists as not citizens, the religious have a powerful lobby with which they influence our government, an evangelical christian has been president for the past 8 years, religious terrorism and genocide happens all the time around the world, the list goes on and on….

So what is my goal as an Atheist? What would my dream world be? Well for one, there wouldn’t be any religion to drive people mad. Thinking about this, I came to a second epiphany of sorts: the deconversion of the world will take a long time. It’s a slow process, we’re winning, but it’s slow. In the mean time, my abrasive attitude is not helping win people to my side.

I think my anger has a lot to do with how I deconverted. After slowly ebbing away from being a born again evangelical I watched “Root of all evil?” by Richard Dawkins. He was angry too, and his reasons for being angry became my reasons, on top of all the baggage that comes with being an ex-evangelical. (I’ve noticed that my friends who weren’t raised in a strict faith are on the whole a LOT less angry than those who were) I suddenly found myself alone on campus in one of the most religious towns in the southern bible belt. I felt isolated and cornered. (I feel much better now with the help of online communities like Atheist Nexus and the Rational Response Squad)

With all this in mind, what should I do? Well, for one, I think I need to chill out. Most of my energy is spent in shouting matches with fundamentalist loonies. I need to stop this as it is a waste of time. No amount of evidence or reason will ever persuade these people. Instead I should focus on religious moderates.

In focusing on religious moderates, I should emphasise the positives of Atheism and be friendly. I have to work on the public image of Atheists and try to de-stigmatize the word. I also have to readjust my goals.  The world will never be completely free from religion. I need to accept this. I think changing my goals to “Minimal religious interference in government” is much more attainable.

People are going to be religious. My trying to eradicate that is just as bad as fundamentalists trying to shove their views down my throat. I can still think their beliefs are ridiculous, but what they think in their own homes or places of worship is their business, not mine. I don’t need to get stressed out and angry over that. Just as long as they stay out of the public government.

It’s going to take some time for me to get over the constant anger, the immediate feelings of loathing when I even hear the word religion. It’s going to take a while for me to get good at focusing on the positive and ignoring the fundies. Perhaps, in time, I might even go to my girlfriend’s Unitarian Universalist church.