Everything In Moderation, Except Religion (Also, Christmas)

Jump to Comments

I spoke a little about the moderate movement, and the unorthodox spectrum, in this post a few days ago. But I felt as though that post sort of begged the question:

Why is moderation?

In this post I talk a little bit about the “it-ain’t-all-bad” argument (a bit different than the “Piece of Shit Car” argument that I plan on getting to in a later post) in favor of religion’s benefit. Then, I propose a re-imagined ritual that takes moderation to its final logical step, atheism.

Here is the perpetual argument posed to those who think religion, and by proxy it’s dogma, it’s meaningless rituals, and it’s doctrine, is stupid:

A woman is a member of the congregation of a Catholic church. She attends church every Sunday, donates to the yearly clothing drive, believes in a woman’s right to chose, and doesn’t believe that all Hindus will suffer in hell after (and during) the rapture. She also understands that “till death do us part” can be a hard rule to live by. She’s a kind and decent person, and she finds community, spiritual satisfaction, and TLC in the process. It’s all good, right? Why attack someone like this?

Put me in a room with someone like this, as I have been, and let me speak to this woman. There are a few things she should know, or at least cop to, some obvious conflicts between the faith to which she ascribes, said faith’s doctrine, and her own finely-tuned values. The first, most glaring issue here is that whether she agrees or not, the Vatican condemns abortion as murder and a sin. Whether she likes it or not, the Vatican has included in its biblical canon The Book of Revelation, in which the ungodly will be judged. Regardless of her personal values, the doctrine of her church, the dominant figurehead, the administrative purveyors of its dogmatic pillars, say that it is sinful to have premarital sex. And just forget about a man with HIV wearing a condom to protect his uninfected girlfriend. That’s unthinkable.

I think Woman X would find, or does find, some of these rules to be a bit out of touch. She’s an American, maybe, and she prides herself on a moderate world view, one in which tolerance and understanding are not mere moral relativism. But will she accept the fact that her church fundamentally disagrees with her? Perhaps she should join a different church- but she may still suffer to find that homosexuality is sinful, or at least that homosexuals are not allowed anywhere near her new places of worship. As she goes further and further into the Orthodox, each time she realizes that she is not only distancing herself from her rigid dogma, but she is also distancing herself from the beloved instrument of hope and faith that acts as a connecting force in the umbrella of her denomination; the bible is coming to be less and less useful to her. She may despair. Is she still a good person? Yes, she is. Her views are more and more widely accepted as she finds further and further removal from her orthodox routes, but such is the way reason and religion work:

As I have said before, and I firmly believe this:The way we get moderation, the way we continue to make religion meaningful, is by destroying it. Here’s what I mean: As a moderate lapsed-Catholic, my mother, who celebrates Christmas, doesn’t really think of it as being about the virgin birth. Christmas is about families being together, about generosity and togetherness. Sorry, moderates, apologists, and theologists, all ye proponents of the “it-ain’t-all-bad argument.” That’s not religion anymore. It’s just love.

I like that idea. Theologians and apologists don’t. They’d prefer to grasp at those few shreds of meaningful ritual, to hold on tight to their primary texts. Because without those, what do we have? A disgusting, hedonistic, loveless, anarchic world totally devoid of morality. Yes, that’s what plenty of them think.

Allow me to pose a counter-argument to this before I go on. I am a citizen of the United States. Our president, the commander-in-chief of our military, is George W. Bush. He’s made a string of idiotic decisions, many of them resulting in massive collateral damage and a never-ending war. As an “American,” then, the argument is that, just as moderate Catholic (I know, an oxymoron if there ever was one) Woman X may be attacked as a judgemental, narrow minded, and superstitious, so too may I be called stupid, homicidal, and war-mongering, right? Well, sort of.

Bare in mind that I’m not attacking Woman X as having these qualities. It is the system to which she actively subscribes that has these qualities, not her. My problem lies with the dominance vehicle, the doctrine generated by it, and my empathy for the kind, beautiful, intelligent, and tolerant people who stick by it despite its disgusting condemnations, superstitions, and lies.

Yes, moderate religion exists. But is it worth it? No. Granted, I can criticize all I want. I will never attempt to force someone to abandon their faith, or their allegiance. All I can do is be an atheist myself, and let other people know that not believing in god and finding religion to be a force who’s negatives far outweigh the (perceived) positives is not (necessarily) to adopt a depraved, indifferent lifestyle.

Here’s the proposed ritual to replace Christmas in my home, and here’s what I want to do with my family:

A day of giving gifts, having a good meal, being with family. Will it fall on Christmas Day (the Saturnalia)? We’ll see. It’s not important because to me the day is not important. I have a sentimental attachment to the idea of snow on the ground, a family huddled around a fire. I have been totally inculcated to that aesthetic, and I associate it with togetherness. No, it’s not superstitious, just something I can get into.

It is ritualistic proposal, with a system of organized events in which a certain meaning is proscribed to the act of performing them. Here’s the thing: I think Woman X could probably get into it, thereby shirking some of the idiocy of the larger dominance vehicle, and embracing her respectable values, values she need not thank any church for.

I wonder what other people think of moderation. Forgetting the “it-ain’t-all-bad” argument, what good does an agnostic do in a church? And what good does a Christian who doesn’t believe in his own doctrine do in a church-based community? Can they do good? Also, as I suppose some of you are full-blown atheists, how do you propose a ritual like the one above be performed? I welcome your thoughts, commentary, argument, and suggestions.

2 Comments

Filed under Agnosticism, Atheism, Catholicism, Christmas, Moderate Christianity, Ritual