Why believe?

The Guardian published a ridiculous editorial by JoEllen Murphy just before Christmas.  Murphy headed a fundraising campaign to run signs on buses reading “Why believe? Because I love you and I created you, for goodness sake – God.”  These signs are a reaction to American Humanist Association signs that say “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”

Let’s start with the wording on her signs.

“Why believe? Because I love you and I created you, for goodness sake – God.

There isn’t much of a rational argument here.  “Because I love you” is the answer to a question like “why did you buy me flowers.”  If someone told you unicorns existed because they loved to use their horns to magically heal all disease, would you believe them?  And, god didn’t say I love you and I created you.  JoEllen Murphy says god says it.  I wonder what gives Christians the idea that they can speak for god.  Can’t he speak for himself?  Keep reading below the break…

On to her introduction:

There is a deeper reason that I and so many donors have been excited about our ad campaign: we have a forum in which to stand up and have our voices heard.

She seems to think that she and other Christians are lacking a forum.  Perhaps she doesn’t know about the hundreds of thousands of Christian churches in the United States or the more than 80 Christian television stations or the more than 180 Christian radio stations or the extensive media coverage (compared to that for humanists or atheists or other non-believers.  Notice how many of the stories that come up for non-believers and atheists are Christian op-eds bashing non-belief.)

This next paragraph is a doozy.

The US was founded by many hundreds of people fleeing Europe in search of religious freedom. America provided the opportunity to practice one’s religious beliefs without fear of repression. Our country has a strong religious foundation that continues today. An ABC News poll found that 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians, 13% as having no religion and 4% as adherents to non-Christian religions.

It sounds like she needs a history lesson and another lesson on reliable sources.  Let’s take it one piece at a time.

The US was founded by many hundreds of people fleeing Europe in search of religious freedom.

The Puritans did come to America for religious freedom – but only for themselves.  People who didn’t want to be Puritans had to run away to Rhode Island.  But most people didn’t come to the US for religious freedom, they they came to the US for money.

America provided the opportunity to practice one’s religious beliefs without fear of repression.

Not in the Puritan Massachusetts Bay colony, though.  They were pretty brutal towards those who believed differently – especially towards the Quakers:

Some Friends in New England were only imprisoned or banished. A few were also whipped, branded, or otherwise corporally punished. Christopher Holder, for example, had his ear cut off. A few were executed by the Puritan leaders, usually for ignoring and defying orders of banishment. Mary Dyer was thus executed in 1660.

One of the most important reasons we ended up with religious freedom in the United States is because of the

practical difficulty of establishing any one faith in an emerging nation composed of a multiplicity of faiths (mostly Protestant sects), none of which was strong enough to dominate the others.

Not especially high minded, but it works and I’m sure it helped prevent a lot of bloodshed.  People are quick to kill in the name of religion.

Our country has a strong religious foundation that continues today.

Well, it’s certainly true that most of the early settlers believed in a god and it’s true that many people still do today.  But I wouldn’t argue that our nation was founded on religion – otherwise our founding fathers wouldn’t have been so careful to separate church and state.

An ABC News poll found that 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians, 13% as having no religion and 4% as adherents to non-Christian religions.

ABC news polls are not exactly scientific.  I’d suggest she cite a more reliable source, such as the Pew Research Council, which paints a very different picture:

religious affiliation in the U.S. is both very diverse and extremely fluid.

Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.

the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%. Moreover, the Protestant population is characterized by significant internal diversity and fragmentation, encompassing hundreds of different denominations

That doesn’t sound like the homogenous Christian nation she thinks she lives in, does it?

Although our much-admired first amendment enshrines (among other rights) freedom of religion in our constitution, a growing movement has been trying to provide us with freedom from religion. In the name of “sensitivity”, a “Christmas parade” through town must now be called a “holiday parade”. Well, what holiday is it? And to get away from that conundrum, our public schools have “winter” parties – without the colours of red and green, mind you.

Christmas isn’t the only holiday this time of year, so why not call it a holiday parade?  And trust me, kids don’t care what the name of the party is as long as there are cakes and cookies and candy.  Besides, if you do believe it’s a religious holiday, we really can’t support it with government money.  I like how Kennedy put it:

“It is my firm belief that there should be separation of church and state in the United States—that is, that both church and state should be free to operate, without interference from each other in their respective areas of jurisdiction. We live in a liberal, democratic society which embraces wide varieties of belief and disbelief. There is no doubt in my mind that the pluralism which has developed under our Constitution, providing as it does a framework within which diverse opinions can exist side by side and by their interaction enrich the whole, is the most ideal system yet devised by man. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances which would lead me to a different conclusion.” (emphasis mine)

Her thread count must be especially low if she thinks that her “fabric of life” is being changed because some people don’t believe a teenage virgin popped out a miracle worker 2000 years ago.

I could go on and on with examples, but the point is that the mundane details, which are the fabric of life, are being changed one by one, year after year, to fit some secularists’ view of what is “politically correct” language.

She goes on to say that

When over four-fifths of the population calls Christmas one of the two biggest holy days of the year, yes, we may be a bit perturbed at the constant nagging to completely drain Christmas of its true meaning.

I’m not sure four-fifths of the population call Christmas one of the two biggest holy days of the year, especially for themselves – maybe she confused holy day with holiday.  And if she thinks Christmas is really about baby Jesus, she should read a little history.  Christmas may be about the birth of Christ for her, but for others it was about Oden or Saturn.  Today Christmas is more about Santa Claus and flying reindeer than a story about a god as a baby.

You can tell this Christian doesn’t know much about what’s actually written in the Bible.

They use the colours and symbols of Christmas: red and green writing and a Santa Claus. The answer to their question is drawn from a popular holiday jingle. It doesn’t read like a membership drive. It sounds more like another attempt to demean the celebration of Christmas and continue the effort to secularise a religious holiday.

The humanists are sneakily using red and green and referring to Santa Claus!  How dare they co-opt those sacred Christian colors and symbols!  Really though, she makes absolutely no sense here.  By using already secular symbols of Christmas, humanists are demeaning a religious holiday?  Would she prefer they use a nativity scene?  Perhaps we’ve been misinterpreting this campaign all along – it’s actually about convincing people that Saint Nick and Rudolph and the elves don’t exist!

She finishes by describing the sacrifices she’s made for her counter-campaign and all of the wonderful support she’s received from other Christians.  Kind of a waste of money in my opinion – everyone on the bus probably sees 748329358 nativity scenes by the time Christmas is over.  People don’t need reminding that for many, there is a religious aspect to Christmas.

Murphy feels like the secularists have launched an assault on her religion, but I think this campaign has a message that scares many religious people.  For many, their religion is their moral compass.  Without their pastor or priest or whatever they think they wouldn’t know right from wrong.  But “Why believe? Just be good for goodness sake!” reminds people that a conscience has nothing to do with any gods.