Marketing atheism

You may have heard of the rise of the "new atheism" in recent years, set forth by authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. In one sense, their atheism isn't "new" at all -- they still deny the existence of any higher power and purport a naturalistic worldview. However, the "new atheists" have a twist on the old atheistic argument that is quite disturbing to Christians and other people of faith. Old atheists simply maintained that religion was based on fiction. It was false. New atheists go beyond that. Religion isn't just false -- it's harmful.

Thus the proponents of the new atheism are much more aggressive than their "old" counterparts. After all, if you believe something is harmful, wouldn't you try and keep people from indulging themselves in it? Makes sense, I guess. Recently, however, a new development has arisen that irks me a bit. It seems as though the American Humanist association has put together a new ad campaign just in time for the holidays. Targeted in our nation's capital, they are devoting $40,000 to ads on buses that say, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." Their reasoning, apparently, is that " there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of nontheists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion," according to Fred Edwords, a spokesman for the AHA. He maintains that they are not trying to argue about the existence of God through their ads or try to persuade anyone to not believe, just to maybe "plant a seed of rational thought" in thinking people's minds (what's the difference, anyway?).

I have a bit of a beef with this, on multiple levels. First of all, it's just in bad taste. Why try and campaign your atheism at arguably the most religious time of year? Even people who don't go to church show up at least once this time of year -- CEO's (Christmas-Easter-Only) in church lingo. Christmas has become such a huge part of our culture that people start thinking about it even before Halloween. And invariably, through the muck and the mire of the commercialism that dominates this holiday (different rant for a different day), people are reminded of what the true meaning of Christmas is: God became man, took on flesh, and died to save his people. Though our culture does a pretty good job of shutting God out even at this time of year, it's nearly impossible to do so completely, and I would say that people's minds are on religion for this short period more than any other on the calendar. So why try and poop in everyone's coffee this time of year? Granted, I don't think the bus ads will "scrooge" millions of people and ruin the holidays (though perhaps I just have a low view of advertising), but it's just tacky. It's kind of like going to a guy's funeral and paying your last respects by telling everybody what a tool the guy was. Even if he was a tool, you're a bigger tool for completely lacking tact. And forgive me if I scoff at the "lonely atheists" excuse. Send 'em a "Christmas is stupid" card if they're really that down in the dumps about it. It seems obvious the real reason is to reach the general public, to plant that seed he honestly referenced. And to do so at Christmas is nothing if not tacky.

Speaking of that seed, since Edwords claims his ad is intended to invoke "rational thought," let's examine the rationality of this ad. "Be good for goodness' sake." Really? Besides being hopelessly circular in nature, what does that even mean? I should do good and moral things on behalf of goodness and morality itself? To do something for someone's sake implies a sense of obligation or indebtedness. In what sense is someone obligated or indebted to "goodness." What has goodness ever done for me? Better yet, is it possible for one to be indebted to an abstract thought like goodness? Or is it patently ridiculous -- one might say, "irrational"?

A better question is, what is goodness anyway? From an atheistic mindset, I'm supposed to be "good," which at best can be defined in relative terms, for the sake of "goodness," which at best can be defined in utilitarian terms. How is it possible to do good when good lacks a concrete definition? How can goodness even exist as an abstract concept if there is no basis for calling something good or evil? Why is kissing a baby better or worse than kicking one? Who's to say? Can goodness define itself, so I can do its bidding because of my obligation to it? Or have we just dipped completely and totally into the realm of irrationality?

The fact is that without some infinite reference point in the person of God, goodness as a finite concept is completely meaningless. I can neither do an act called "good," nor can I do it for the sake of "goodness" if those terms are stripped of any meaning. When God is established as eternal and primary, then goodness as a concept flows from him. Good is defined in terms of the infinite God and we do good for His sake, because our very existence is indebted to Him (not to mention salvation, from the Christian worldview). Atheists may stamp their foot all day long about rationality, but they have a long way to go to support a cohesive thought process. In essence, the AHA has answered its own question. "Why believe in a god?" In part because the second half of their ad lacks any meaning or coherence apart from a notion of God.

Perhaps their campaign will indeed plant a seed, but it most certainly will not be rational.

Further reading on Proposition 8

If you're curious to read more commentary about Prop 8, check out this article just posted in Albert Mohler's blog. It's a good read.

For all my Republican friends ...

Just in case you thought I was "going all left-ish" on you, here's a rant for you. :-)

You might have heard of the debate raging in California over the controversial legislation known as "Proposition 8", which was passed on Election Day. Essentially, the proposition modifies the California state constitution to legally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus excluding homosexual marriages. The legislation passed as a result of a California State Supreme Court decision that overturned a previously voted ban on gay marriage. Proposition 8 was designed to modify the constitution so that such a reversal could not succeed again.

I applaud the legislation because it finally honors the wishes of the people. They have already spoken once in favor of a traditional view of marriage, but the judicial branch took that away. This time, at least, the people have spoken again, and I am glad that at least for right now, the people's wishes are honored above those in the higher levels of the courts.

But now there are several protests in the streets, and have been since last Tuesday. I guess my first question is ... what exactly are you protesting? You had a chance to vote down the proposition, but the people at large clearly supported it. It would seem as though they are protesting democracy itself. But more than that, I am saddened by this article I read today on the issue. In it, an Episcopalian pastor, Rev. Ed Bacon, denounces the Christian community that supported "this act of bigotry." He was referring specifically to Saddleback Church (where Rick Warren currently serves as pastor), who was outspoken in their support of the proposition. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (I feel ridiculous typing that) has also said that the war is not over, and it will go back to the courts. He comments, "It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."

This irks me a bit. First of all, Arnold, no it's not. This has no parallel whatsoever to the 1948 case, because this has NOTHING to do with race. It is a matter of a sexual preference, which cannot and should not be compared to ethnicity. Even if you contend that one can be born as a homosexual (which is hardly a foregone conclusion), homosexuality is by nature an active choice. You don't choose what color your skin is; you chose whom you have sex with, or more appropriately, whom you marry. It's also been suggested that alcoholism can be hereditary, yet if an alcoholic gets wasted and try to drive home, he will be and should be locked up, regardless of his genes. Now drunkenness and homosexuality are different in nature. I understand that, but both involve active choices, not a passive designation. The issue of sexual orientation cannot be judged along the same lines as one's race no more than one's preference for blondes or brunettes can be.

But that's really besides the point. My main issue with gay marriage is that it violates what is by nature a religious institution. Marriage has its origin in Scripture (or at the very least in religious communities), and has always been defined as a union by one man and one woman. A union that falls outside of those parameters may be called many things, but "marriage" is not one of them. If you want to call it a "civil union" and give them equal benefits as a married couple, I'm ok with that. I don't think a homosexual couple should be discriminated against by our government when it comes to tax benefits and legal standing. But that's a civil issue ... not a religious one.

As for you, Rev. Bacon, what is truly "disappointing" is that an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ would fail to recognize a community standing up for a moral mandate commanded by Scripture. If you don't agree that Scripture teaches a traditional view of marriage, then that's fine. We can agree to disagree, though I'd love to hear your exegetical reasons. But to accuse someone of bigotry for taking a moral stand that they clearly believe is taught in Scripture is despicable. These aren't like the people who tried to justify the inferiority of African-Americans using obscure passages ripped out of context. These are people following very clear teachings in both the Old and New Testaments. So, with all due respect, Reverend, shame on you.

Man, I need to stop following politics ... this can't be good for my blood pressure.

Yes We Did

I have never been entirely sure what Mr. Obama has been insisting it is that we "can" do, but I'm fairly sure we as a country did it last night. After witnessing an historic election, we can all take a deep breath and think about the future. As for me, I mentioned a few days ago I would have some thoughts on this whole election season, so I won't waste any time getting down to it. And yes, it's quite long, but I think much of this needs to be said. Some of it may sound harsh, but it is all meant to be constructive and in love. Here we go ...

• I have never followed politics particularly closely, in large part due to the diarrhea of information and attacks lobbed at the American public for months on end. I grow tired of it rather easily, and have usually not been very involved in politics. I knew a little bit, but I was hardly up to date on all the issues, because all the sides were saying one thing and accusing the other side of saying something else, which the other side denied and attacked the other side for something outlandish, which was in turn denied ... and on ... and on ... and on. This election was different, mainly because of the current state of the country. I still am no guru, but this election captured my attention and made me really listen to what was being said, which brings me to my next conclusion ...
• Politicians as a whole must think we are idiots. I think I understand why I can hardly tell where a candidate stands on an issue. He won't say. He'd rather tell me about the time his opponent ran over a puppy and laughed about it with his buddies. You know why? Because he thinks that's what we care about. That's what we grab on to. Many Republicans I've heard are too busy calling Obama a Muslim, a terrorist, or the anti-Christ (or some combination there of) to hear what he actually says. Many Democrats are too busy calling John McCain senile, Sarah Palin an idiot, or ridiculing both of them for being in bed with Bush to really care what they propose we as a nation do. It's mind-numbing. It's why if I saw another ad from Mitch McConnell talking about Bruce Lunsford living in Chicago or an ad from Bruce Lunsford accussing Mitch McConnell of being "one of the most corrupt members of Congress," I probably would have had an aneurism. I think it's time we as a people stopped listening and accepting these cheap attacks as a substantive argument. I want to hear why Barack Obama's plan for the economy is inferior to John McCain's and the reasons why (or vice versa). I want to hear what you will do about the issues that threaten us, not how much of a tool you can make your opponent look like. Part of this means we stop spreading the propaganda on behalf of our own candidates. I have heard people call Barack Obama a socialist (more on this in a second) that I'm nearly certain have no idea what socialism actually is. They just heard their buddy say it, who may or may not have a clue why he even thinks it. People get a chain letter detailing the reasons why the Bible says Obama is the anti-Christ and then just spew it to all their friends without thinking for a second whether the argument even makes sense. For the sake of intellectual honesty, can we please just stop? Which leads me to my next point ...
• Barack Obama is not a socialist. Seriously. Look, I didn't vote for the man, for a variety of reasons, but this little charge has been tossed around for too long. It's ridiculous. If you want socialism, go buy a Rage Against the Machine album. Obama is calling for a tax increase for the extremely wealthy, and a tax cut for everyone else. That's not socialism, that's taxes. They're in the Bible, you have to pay them, and every government in the universe has them. It's unfortunate he chose the words, "redistribute the wealth," because all he's really doing is raising taxes for a small minority of Americans in order to give a tax break to everyone else. The people that complain that he's merely giving handouts to those who are too lazy to earn it themselves implies that everyone making less than $200,000 a year is lazy. I cannot begin to state how arrogant and elitist that sounds. For that matter, why exactly is everyone clamoring for a tax break for the extremely wealthy? If we've learned one thing from the current economic crisis, isn't it that the power of greed knows no bounds? Is it really safe to assume that by giving large companies tax breaks that they will take their savings and use it for the good of the people by creating more jobs? Take a look at AIG, who received several billion dollars worth of backing in the form of a government bailout, and then takes a $500,000 executive retreat to a resort, indulging in massages, manicures/pedicures, and other lavish expenses. Their excuse for this? It wasn't anything more than they'd always done. Case in point. Perhaps I just don't know my politics very well (which is certainly possible), but most of the people I've heard calling Obama a socialist actually stand to benefit from his proposals. Which leads me to my next point ...
• My Republican friends (in my best John McCain voice), everybody just needs to CHILL. Grab some Valium, take a deep breath, and relax. It's going to be OK. I spent a few hours watching people update their Facebook statuses last night, and it was nothing short of hilarious. You would think some people have never seen a Democrat before. We've had Democratic presidents before, and we'll have them again. Life will not cease to function. Obama will not be our dictator (as some suggested), and he will not abolish the voting process to inaugurate his reign of terror (seriously, some people actually said that). If he does, you can come kick me in the shin. I promise.
• And for my Christian friends, we definitely need to chill. I think some people have forgotten that God is never surprised by an election, nor is he ever thwarted. Every government under heaven from eternity past to the end of humanity has been instituted and ordained by God. Obama, even if he is the anti-Christ (which he's not ... that's absurd), could never thwart the ultimate sovereignty of God. "Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him" (Psalm 115:3). Rest in that, Christian, and act as though you believe it. The rampant panic last night does not suggest a very faithful people. Which brings me to ...
• I can't help but be disappointed by the reaction of dismay and fear last night. First, for the people threatening to leave the country ... well, you might as well pack up and go, because I can think of nothing more childish and un-American than leaving the country just because your guy didn't win (even if you weren't serious). You may have scoffed (rightfully) at the Democrats who said it when Bush was elected, and it is equally ridiculous to say it now. Also, last night, whether you like the outcome or not, was a truly historic thing in our nations history. America just elected a black President. That's HUGE. Meanwhile, most of the Christians I know are belly-aching because society as we know it will cease to exist. What a terrible message for the church to send to the African-American community. We should be marked as a people of love, rejoicing for our country's progress of racial reconciliation, and instead we pack up and make plans for Australia. Truly sad. And finally ...
• You now have an obligation, Christian. You are to pray. You are to pray for this country and you are to pray for its leaders. It's not merely a good idea, it's a command. I don't care if you hate Barack Obama with the hatred of a thousand suns, you now are obligated to bathe him and his office in prayer. So any resentment you have should be set aside, for the sovereignty of God has spoken and you have a new leader. A prayer such as, "Lord, please don't let Obama be such a tool and wreck everything" does not count. As Christians, we are called to submit to the authorities and to pray for them. There is absolutely no way around it.

There. Rant over. You can now yell at me in the comments and call me a liberal-loving moron. :-)

Irony -- breaking your promise about a political post

Since whoever is elected at all levels of government tomorrow will most likely go on to break about half of the promises they made during their mad rush to occupy their office of choice, I figured it is only fitting that I do the same. I promised a political post before election day, but I've decided to change plans a little bit. After we have elected our next President, I'll post some thoughts on this whole season, interacting a bit with the issues and commenting on the campaign process itself. Until then, make sure you vote tomorrow!