Berning Bright

cho1

(Source)

It has been interesting to watch my more progressive Christian friends excuse Bernie’s lack of apparent religiosity. Some friends have taken to calling him “a spiritual man” instead. Here is one comment a friend posted online:

Each to their own. Trump has the racist, sexist, ageist, ableist, and narrow-minded ignorance and greed that would suit this nation to its demise. But each to their own. Many people probably recognize Bernie Sanders as a passive, tree hugger, atheist, but I have to disagree. He is much more than just some atheist. I am glad to hear from you though, even if it is on political disagreement!

Let the record show that I am just some atheist.

Bernie is not openly atheist. He is openly humanist.

Unless there is some better source stating Bernie’s atheism? I am shamelessly delighted that a video from Jimmy Kimmel Live! is all we have to discuss his religiosity.

All this begs the question: Why are Christian democratic voters excusing his lack of religiosity? In short, atheism has a negative appeal. Supporting an atheist in an election is inconsistent with their worldview, and so they choose instead to simply dismiss the lack of religiosity rather than confront and rationally assess it. It’s much easier to ignore than to an accept someone’s deviance from religiosity. Just ask my parents; they’re experts.

From what I have seen, secular groups are endorsing Bernie. They never quote Bernie as an atheist, but they are apt to quote some of Hillary Clinton’s more religious remarks. For instance, in 2014, during an interview, Hillary said: “At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it. I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement. [1]” It’s enough to make my skin crawl. Hillary has made anti-extremist statements, but secular groups are painting her with a particular brush at the moment. Humanist groups have also quoted and supported Hillary in the past. Even their social media has taken a dramatic tern for the bern.

No matter who is elected, I imagine atheists can expect to see much of the same congressional ritual, the same Bibles passed along and used as ceremony, just one more token piece of evidence that fanatics cite when claiming that the United States is a “Christian nation.” We in a period of unhealthy nationalism, and we have been here for a long time.

Jesus Goes to Hobby Lobby

At my university, I manage a student organization for creative writers. In addition to workshops, readings, etc., we host craft nights that pertain to writing and literature. Since we are located in a smaller town with few available art-centric resources and since I am admittedly not always the best planner, I occasionally end up buying some of our supplies from Hobby Lobby, the begrudged craft store not far from campus. For example, the organization’s Writer’s Block Party required acrylic spray that would add a glossed finish to members’ works, and I (poor planner that I am) ended up at Hobby Lobby on the day of our event asking an employee to help find the product. Alas.

CWC006

Me with that damned Hobby Lobby acrylic spray. *pitch forks! fire!*
Someone! Quick! Mop that floor.

With a more liberal-leaning membership and support system, some people voiced concerns about purchasing products from Hobby Lobby. Our more conservative members were silent. They didn’t praise our “support” of Hobby Lobby. When asked, many of them said they didn’t care at all and thought the whole thing was being “blown out of proportion.”

The popular view in the media was that conservatives were going wild over the Supreme Court decision to favor Hobby Lobby’s charged mandate against providing female employees with contraceptive coverage. Hobby Lobby has claimed to be a reflection of Christian values. (I guess, this explains why I never see any snazzy Margaritaville signs in their stores.) Many conservatives who support the pro-life movement thought Hobby Lobby was making a crucial stand for their freedoms and quickly joined in the crusade by posting their opinions on social media websites. The most popular question being, “How can the Government make Christians pay for abortions?”

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court decision was made, and conservatives celebrated. Many considered this ruling to be a success for freedom of religion and began writing posts on Facebook and Twitter about a “rare triumph. . . in the war against Christianity.”

During all this yaysaying and war victory celebrating and liberal head shaking, we failed to see one simple detail:

“The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections.”

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Who is “the Government” exactly? Well, taxpayers. Me, the conservatives and their pro-choice neighbor. In celebrating the rights of for-profit corporations to have religious freedom, many conservatives failed to see the scope of this detail. Corporations were the winner in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Not conservatives or Christians or protesting activists. Hobby Lobby decided not to pay their share and thus burdened taxpayers. None of this is a new story. Pacifists have long been paying taxes that go to military support. Atheists have shouldered a larger tax responsibility, because many churches are tax-exempt.

WWJD2

Hobby Lobby sold its case as being a huge victory for the conservative pro-life movement to garner customers and higher sales. It made Christians believe that their corporation was carrying some huge burden for them on the front lines of the “war against Christianity” when really this court ruling was a huge loss for everyone but Hobby Lobby and other future corporations that could possibly pass off their fiscal obligations to taxpayers.

It does make me feel somewhat disgusted to find myself shopping in Hobby Lobby and to know that I will probably end up there again sometime in the next year, but it’s not because of my anti-religious leanings. It’s because of my feminist ideology. I am exhausted at women being treated like objects again in some sort of religious contest. I am exhausted at seeing the working class woman disproportionately affected by a demagogic corporation. I am exhausted by reading another ridiculous gender-based legislative act. Here is to hoping that we remain conscious of the disingenuous nature in these acts and the consequences of such ubiquitous crusades.

Question: Examining The Ten Commandments Controversy

[Dog-faced Atheist] Ask
What is one of your unpopular opinions?

Over the past ten years, there have been movements that attempt to extract the Ten Commandments from courthouses. I am against removing the Ten Commandments. I think we should add all types of philosophy to courthouses in no particularly hierarchical fashion. The idea of eliminating Ten Commandments monuments is essentially the removal of a type of literature, art, and philosophy. I think we should add quotes from the Quran, Torah, Tao Te Ching, the whole big shabang of holy books to courthouses. Let’s get crazy and add Benjamin Hoff’s The Tao of Pooh while we’re at it.

taoofpooh1

In all seriousness though, I do think we should add more culturally diverse influences to the art and literature aesthetic of courthouses. This means expanding beyond just political quotes and portraits of dead white Presidents.

There are a couple of reasons that this might be considered an unpopular opinion:

  1. Adverse Public Reaction
  2. Separation of Church and State
  3. Arbitrary Decision Making & Favoritism

The repercussions of this idea have to be considered equally.

Adverse Public Reaction

In 2013, I remember reading news articles about atheists unveiling a monument in front of a Florida courthouse and feeling excited. However, my excitement soon faded. The protests against the monument didn’t stop for a time. Some bloggers were even criticizing the local news agencies for not doing a more accurate report on the public backlash.

atheistmonument

Photo Credit: Matt Stamey,  Washington Post

This is one of my biggest fears when it comes to introducing more philosophies inside (or outside) courthouses. It could easily invite intolerance. It’s the mindset of “How dare you desecrate the word of my God by putting that filth alongside scripture?” To some viewers, it wouldn’t matter if both sets of scripture were equally uplifting or viable as long as it came from a different faith system. Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s wise to view this idea of implementing multiple documents and art pieces as unassailable. Giving movements or ideas the title of “unassailable” is a dismissive practice. (I am looking at you, Salon reporters.) It gives oppressors the power to control someone’s actions. Civil rights, for example, were probably once viewed as being “unassailable.”

If you’re using the word unassailable right now, it better have an economic basis. And even then, I’m not sure that I will agree with you entirely. (Side note: Can you imagine reading this “Local Economic Professors Riot: Karl Marx Quote Engraved At Courthouse” as a news headline? Too funny. Finance junkies, unite!)

Separation of Church and State

When asked, a majority of my secular friends said they were for the removal of the Ten Commandments, because they wanted to keep the church and state separate. Having the Ten Commandments posted at the courthouse was thus an invitation for the church to enter the judicial system. This makes complete sense to me, but I don’t like the idea of removing literature or art from courthouses. It just sounds too much like something from a dsytopian novel. Likewise, only having one philosophy represented sounds a lot like a dystopian novel too.

churhcstate

Conceptually, the idea of promoting diversity relies on acceptance and respect. This means understanding the ways in which everyone is unique but also the same. Courthouses, a model built on the idea of corrective education and justice, could become a venue for nurturing diversity. They could further develop into an empirically stimulating advocate for the promotion of understanding, moving beyond tolerance, and embracing the cultural richness of various worldviews and philosophies.

None of this is to say that I am espousing some flagrant ideas about adopting multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a whole other ballpark, my friends.

Arbitrary Decision Making & Favoritism

Arbitrary decision making and favoritism is the argument that the people choosing the quotes from literature and soliciting the art pieces would only select ones that supports their personal ideas. A courthouse, for instance, might choose theologically-based rules or quotes that make people feel guilty. This repercussion can be seen in the ACLU v. McCreary County court case. A Ten Commandments display was challenged by the people, so the courthouse added more text that referenced religion and God. The display was later declared unconstitutional, because the County only chose documents that expressed favoritism toward religious mindsets. It didn’t include any type of secular representation.

At the end of the day though, all I’m really talking about are matters of interior design which makes me feel kind of silly.

If you would like to submit a question or blog topic, feel free to visit my Ask Box and fill out an anonymous form there. Thank you, Anon! This was a great question. Writing this blog entailed communicating with some old friends, and I appreciated reconnecting with them. All the love.
– Sarah Key