Hey, everyone! I’ve had a lot on my mind recently and last night I had a conversation with a friend of mine that prompted me to write a blog post. I don’t want to write this as an essay length response to my friend, rather their sentiment reflects something much larger going on within the liberal/progressive community in the United States and I would like to add my two cents.
For context, the exchange that serves as the catalyst for this post is this. In a moment of irreverence quite typical for me, I posted the following to Facebook:
“Conversation that has never happened:
Patient: Doctor, I haven’t been feeling well for some time now.
Doctor: understood, I think we need to start you on a juice cleanse immediately. Have you ever considered crystals or chakra realignment?”
I’m hilarious, I know….
This prompted a very lengthy exchange between me and this friend of mine, who I will leave anonymous, in which they said (among other things) the following:
“the majority of people on this planet appreciate that any attempt at connecting oneself to spirit or G-D is a respectable pursuit. I also learned that contrary to my own Christian upbringing – that to mock another human’s attempt at connecting with the realm of spirit and deeper awareness of the human experience is born of ignorance and/or immaturity. I respect you. I hate to see you falling into such unbecoming nonsense… You don’t have to respect faith healing, but is it really useful or helpful for you to judge it to be wrong? Are you truly respecting one’s right to hold such beliefs in seeking to judge or discredit those beliefs? I ask because I think this is a huge part of where we, as Americans, get it wrong. To me it goes back to that whole religious persecution argument… So much of what people find objectionable today is based in the idea that they have superior morality or spirituality and are therefore entitled to dictate how others should believe and act. This is slippery territory and as progressives we absolutely must get this right and not let ourselves pander to less astute audiences. Especially at this point, when there’s still time to get it right.”
This is really where I want to begin.
We have a problem within progressive circles, right now, and I agree with my friend when they say “we absolutely must get this right.”
The problem that we are running into is that we seem to be conflating respect and acceptance/support. You can simultaneously respect a person or institution AND criticize it. Those two actions are not mutually exclusive and many progressives’ inability to make this distinction has led to some rather bizarre moments in modern political discourse.
The reason that I write this on my Ask an Atheist blog is because many of these moments have been directly tied to religion. The problem that routinely arises is one that pits two different progressive ideals against each other. Commonly, in recent years, this has related to Islam. For instance, since Donald Trump’s election, there have been many events across the country and across the world where non-Muslim women have worn Hijabs as a sign of solidarity with Islam. This show of solidarity was very much in order, as Donald Trump both campaigned on and, upon taking office, tried to institute a version of a ban on Muslims entering the United States (idiotic and absurd). The issue arose when this prompted a flood of responses from former Muslims and moderate Muslims criticizing the left for glorifying what they view as a symbol of systematic female oppression on a massive scale, all in the name of solidarity.
So, in this example, here is the conflict
Ideal #1: Progressive acceptance of minority communities.
Ideal #2: Progressive championing of religious freedom.
And
Ideal #3: Progressive championing of feminism
Now, any good progressive, myself included, will tell you that all three of these are admirable ideals, worth pursuing in society. The problem isn’t that one of these is wrong, the problem is that when a religious community (ideal 2), especially a minority religious community in the west (ideal 1), is also viewed as perpetuating the systemic oppression of women (ideal 3), how do you resolve that conflict? Especially when this charge is levied by former and current members of the community in question.
Let’s look at one more example. This one will make most of us much more comfortable because it involves Christianity, and since Christianity is the majority religion in the United States we all feel much more comfortable criticizing it…. Be honest.
Christian faith healing is a well-known phenomenon. This is the attempt to heal a sick or injured person through prayer and religious ceremony rather than through medicine. While this has always been controversial, it has become even more so in recent years as the number of deaths in states like Idaho begins to add up. In Idaho, there is a religious exemption from prosecution for faith-healing parents who deny their children medical care resulting in serious injury or death to their children. Often times these deaths or injuries result from very treatable diseases like asthma, flu, appendicitis, etc…
So, once again, there is a conflict of progressive ideals
Ideal #1: Care and concern for the health and well-being of dependent citizens, especially children
And
Ideal #2: Progressive championing of religious freedom.
In this case, which is the example that my friend and I were briefly discussing, I have very little trouble deciding which ideal must take precedent. As a progressive, (and this was true when I was a Christian progressive as well) I fully respect an individual’s autonomy and freedom to believe whatever they like, but I am uncomfortable with that person imposing their belief system on another person in a manner which may negatively impact the other person’s life. This is doubly true if the person having a belief imposed on them is a dependent in the care of the first individual.
This is my major concern. Progressives CANNOT allow some misunderstood notion of “respect” to turn into a hiding place which we use to shelter ourselves from difficult conversations or decisions. When something is as demonstrably dangerous as trying to treat appendicitis with prayer, we can and SHOULD be willing to point this out as a poor decision, rather than worrying that by doing so we are going to offend the person who holds that belief. Similarly, we must be willing to acknowledge that the same books which are used by some as tools of great charity and peace are used by others as weapons of oppression and violence.
This nuance seems to be getting lost in the heat of many current political conversations. Respect for religious freedom means much more than simply accepting all beliefs as if they are equal, simply because someone in the world sincerely believes it. This, of course, is one of the major problems with religious belief. There is no objective standard by which we can measure one interpretation of religious practice against another in order to determine which one is correct, if any of them are. It is all an exercise in subjective thought and interpretation, and if someone is properly informed (or properly uninformed) they are likely capable of justifying just about any action on religious grounds.
So…. Some definitions.
Progressive: a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
Conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
What is really the progressive view here? A thoughtful and evidence-based evaluation of each situation in order to ensure that our laws and collective morality keep up with the times? Or saying that out of respect for the tradition of religious practice that we should not question the decisions of people asserting sincerely held belief?
I am fully aware that as an atheist my views regarding religion are not shared by a majority of my fellow Americans. I for one do not believe that faith is a virtue. I do not believe we should be taking moral cues from books thousands of years old. I do not think we should treat women and other ethnic groups as property to be traded or won. I am also fully aware that the overwhelming majority of religious people in the United States do not think that we should treat be doing that either. When it comes to my personal moral code I likely have far more in common with Christians in the United States today then I would have had with atheists of 2,000 years ago. This is the nature of evolving and progressive morality, as well as cultural socialization.
I wanted to write this blog post because there seems to be a fear deeply embedded within the progressive movement today, that if we criticize another culture or religion that this starts a slippery slope to… I don’t know… world war III. Many people seem to be trending towards the view that respect and toleration cannot coexist with critique and criticism, and this is just an absurdly false dichotomy. Part of mutual respect between people is an ability to accept varying ideological backgrounds, personal histories, and life influences while working together to find common ground and peaceful way to coexist. This does NOT mean that if someone does something that is demonstrably harmful to themselves or others that we just throw up our hands and say, “well, they believe it, and I respect them, therefore I will keep my mouth shut.” Part of respecting someone is believing that they have the capacity to grow as a person. I’m fully aware of how condescending and paternalistic that sounds because it necessarily assumes that one person or point of view is superior and thus has something to teach. Such is the nature finding a balance between conflicting ideological perspectives, though. My hope is that everyone engaged in this discussion is humble enough to be able to recognize when they are the one in the wrong… This is very difficult. I struggle with it all the time. Pride is pain. But we can’t stop trying.
As part of this process, we all have to work together to check the trend towards absolutism within the progressive movement today. For the good of the movement, and for our future, and I think that it is time we step back, recommit to being self-reflective, and remember that respect and criticism are not mutually exclusive.
Christjahn 