By Donald B. Ardell - March 08, 2009
Some
believers in a personal god want everyone, including non-believers, to be
reverent and deferential regarding the deity they adore, the almighty one
possessed of supernatural, unimaginable omnipotence. They want us to be
respectful of their beliefs in a deity who rules over everything while exuding
boundless love for all creatures.
Well, if I
could wrap my brain around that idea, I could probably manage a mighty kowtow
to the Glorious One. But, perhaps due to a gene deficiency, I find it
impossible to generate much enthusiasm for the Grand Creator business.
Therefore,
I don't empathize with Muslims who get all worked up about cartoons that depict
their prophet in ways not of their liking, which includes any depiction at all.
Likewise, I have zero concern for the sensibilities of those who chose to be
offended by cartoons featuring the Pope, or any religious figure, real or
imagined, living or dead.
To his
credit, Denmark's prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen responded to demands for
an official apology by Islamic religious officials after a local newspaper
published cartoons that offended some Muslims as follows: "The government
refuses to apologize because the government does not control the media or a
newspaper outlet; that would be in violation of the freedom of speech."
Just so. Let us all marshal our energies in the months to come to see that things
stay this way, in our own societies. Let's come out and declare our unwavering
support for keeping separate church and state while ensuring that citizens
enjoy freedom of speech and all that goes with it.
I saw the
movie "Milk" the other day and heard Barry Lynn speak in Pinellas
Park a few days thereafter. Both were inspirational, informative and fun. Both
offered many important lessons, one of which is the value in being public about
non-beliefs. In this fashion, the devout are more likely to realize that
doubters or unbelievers are folks just like themselves, in most ways. They are
just regular friends and neighbors, co-workers and even relatives. In the life
of Harvey Milk, the issue was discrimination against gays; in the present case,
the group that needs to make its presence and ideas familiar is non-believers
in any versions of god creatures.
In the UN,
a sub-organization organization comprised of representatives of Islamic
countries is demanding that the larger body adopt a speech code. The code would
apply in all societies (not just Islamic countries) and give special protection
to believer sensibilities, particularly Islam. It would make
"off-limits" the "holy truths" of other religions, and
identify offenses as "blasphemous."
Hopefully,
the USA and other countries that prize freedom of speech as much as the Danes
will defeat such a constraint on liberty sought by leaders of the very nations
that have so little or none of it.
I had a
personal experience along these lines just yesterday. A friend became quite ill
all of a sudden and was hospitalized. To deal with the large number of friends
calling for updates and in order to provide an opportunity for friends to
express support, she created a website. At the site, she placed a description
of her illness and treatment. The latter was highlighted by a condemnation of
the medical system. She wondered how anyone rich could obtain medications she
was given that cost over $1,000. She wrote, "Please say a special prayer
for anyone without adequate health insurance."
As a
non-believer, I wanted to enter a comment at the site that a person without
insurance will surely need more than a prayer, special or otherwise. My dear
wife, more diplomatic than me perhaps, put the kibosh on such a comment. She
feared I would upset the patient, who did not need a reminder that maybe a
Grand Wahoo of some kind was not "up there" answering prayers,
whether for the uninsured or anyone else.
My wife is
usually right about such things (I suppose nine out of ten is "usually")
so I grumbled a bit and refrained from writing anything "blasphemous"
at the site. I lit a candle and did a rain dance instead. Did I do the right
thing? I don't think so - but I have caved before. I allowed my first-born to
be baptized in order to keep the relatives happy. Another sell-out. Have I no
shame? ("Not enough," I can hear you saying.)
Which
leads me to the suggestion that non-believers of all stripes do better than I
did (above) and emerge from proverbial closets of polite silence on religious
perspectives to do what Harvey Milk asked of gays - let everyone recognize that
many of their friends do not buy into, share or positively regard supernatural
beliefs. It would, I believe, lead to clearer communications and understandings
and thus better relationships based upon genuine respect for varied
perspectives.
And it
might help you avoid acting diplomatically to a fault.
Someday, I
will be brave -- maybe I should see the Wizard of Oz. 