Many people think that bigots are very religious church-going types who have no tolerance for people of other faiths. Without a doubt, this describes a section of the population, partucularly in Australia and the U.S., who belong to evangelical churches. These mega churches are popping up all over the place. They have massive attendence and offer a slickly promoted promise of salvation.
Recently watching a documentary on videosift called 'Jesus Camp' I couldn't help but weep at the horrendous indoctrination of young children in evangelical churches in the U.S. being carried out by adult church leaders who take the term 'bigot' to phenomenal extremes.
On the other end of the religious spectrum, however some of the most bigoted people I have recently met have never set foot in a church, or prayed or done any of the things one would usually associate with being religious. The term bigot refers to someone "who holds an opinion obstinately and is intolerant towards those who think differently". I interpret this to mean someone who believes that their version of the world, of life, or of what constitutes right or wrong is the only true version and that everyone else, especially people who hold views vastly different to theirs is wrong, or stupid, delusional or ill-informed.
I suspect that with the rising profile of the religious right in the U.S. the whole atheist movement is being ratcheted up in opposition. It's becoming very P.C. to bash a 'religious nut'.I completely agree with their outrage at the detrimental influence of evangelical groups, especially in spheres like education and politics, however it does not make atheist ideas any easier to swallow, or in my mind, make the atheist argument right.
I know atheists who could stun you with their bigotry, you'd think they were quoting from some text, so practised was their vilification of 'the church', its history and anyone associated with it. The problem I have in talking with many atheists, is that when I agree with them completely on the part about the atrocities perpetrated by the church (past and present), and I am nodding along with their comments, they presume that I am following them with the rest of their argument that anyone associated with church is wrong, stupid or delusional, or that because it cannot be proved by science, God cannot exist. I am too afraid of being drawn into a confrontational conversation to let them know that they have no right to generalise and criticise people so harshly, or to have such a limited view of the possibilities of the divine.
I have had similar misunderstandings in the past with very religious people. On any given day you'll easily be able to drag me into discussion about the way the world continues to experience man's inhumanity to man. It's one of my favourite topics. I don't take pleasure in the idea, rather, it has me wondering when will we learn, when will people evolve to the point where they will accept their own personal role in acting inhumanly toward each other? Because it basically boils down to the fact that we are all responsible for each and every atrocity that occurs on earth. If you believe that we are all one, you can't finger-point and say "it's the American's fault, or Muslim's fault, or the governement's fault." We are Americans, Muslims, government, every one of us.
Anyway, I digress. The problem I run into when I talk with religious people about these topics, is that when they see me as equally concerned with the problems of the world, they see the potential convert in me ready to benefit from the answers provided in the little booklet they shove under my nose. You can picture my frustration when I wasn't really looking for some prescription for the world's or my own problems.
When I learnt to stop getting dragged into conversation with such people, and firmly state that I wasn't interested, they stopped coming to my door. This is an intersting point to clarify, because I have moved many times over the last few years, and no matter where I am, they have stopped coming.
On videosift recently I
left a comment about a video of the scientist Richard Dawkins
addressing a group of Jerry Falwell students. Brian left the comment that Dawkins seemed shrill and angry at the students, that he got the feeling that he really had a dislike of them for their religious views, and that this was not a good foil for the fundies. I agreed with Brian's comment completely. Dawkin's attack of a group of people for their beliefs may gain him intellectual points (something he seems to take much pride in) but not humanitarian ones, and ultimately does little to encourage acceptance and peace amongst people.
In his tirade against religion, Dawkins is displaying the kind of bigotry that one could also associate with leaders of Jesus Camps. It makes me think he is no different then from these people. There's a lot of hatred, intolerance and attack of the other side, from both sides of the theist fence, and its expression does nothing but engender more of the same.
An atheist friend of mine believes that world peace can only come about when religion is completely gone from the world. The problem with this simplistic view is that within a culture, religion can often be like the weave of a fabric. You can't have the fabric without the weave.
Getting back to Richard Dawkins and others who use science to 'disprove' the existence of God. If one believes in the traditional view of God as the guy in the white robe punishing and saving as his mood would have it, I agree, scientists seem to have a better handle on the reality of our world and how it was created. If one believes in something a little different, like the idea that we are all made of energy that cannot be destroyed, that exists in every single animate and inanimate object in the universe and that this energy is the glue that gives everything form and this glue is an expression of love and that love=God, then science and belief can rest easily in the same mind.
It does for me, anyway, but I realise not everyone needs to hold onto such a belief. I'm also not out to attack anyone for their beliefs, atheists or fundamentalists of any other persuasion alike. I'll probably give them a wide berth, however, and if their actions constitute attack or abuse of another, I won't hesitate to comment on their behaviour either.
