I’ve decided that it’s OK to beat a dead horse, but only so long as it takes for the carcass of that dead horse to assume the desired shape and form. Consider this my equestrian corpse-sculpture on religion.
As of late, I’ve given the touchiest of issues a number of love-taps. Having read over those previous columns, I’d now like to refine my positions, because—a) why not? and b) the fusion of opinion, humor, and lowbrow pop-culture references in those diatribes muddied my aim. I’d like to clarify some of my perspectives, and I’d like to do it with minimal pop-culture asides.
The following are my 10 tenets on religion. (I was going to call them “commandments,” but some old dead guy beat me to the punch.) They’re not altogether logical or consistent, but then again, neither are any of the world’s ancient religious texts.
1. Do not judge, lest ye be labeled a total jerk. Contrary to public belief, I don’t hate Christians—just the ones who piss me off.
There are those among religious folk who accept that they’re not above the rest of mankind because of their choice of dogma. For these folk, personal faith is personal faith; that there are countless other dogma in the world is irrelevant. Hats off to these true believers for being rational and considerate human beings.
Occupying the opposite end of the religious spectrum, we have judgmental whelps who spend their days writing off those without faith as inferior, unenlightened heathens. Worse yet, they scheme to remove the little separation between church and state that we do have. It’s this pedantic sort who should heed the warning of tenet two.
2. Beware the wrath of Fenris! There’s nothing wrong with not being a Christian. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is practically begging me to play “Fenris, devourer of gods.”
For the sake of explanation, let’s break down my sacrilege into two categories—“blasphemy” and “vitriol.” My sacrilege operates on a number of levels. It’s not as easy as 1, 2, 3, heresy. I may not have a god, but I do have a method.
I blaspheme because blasphemy is fun. There’s nothing spiteful in my blasphemy; I just get a kick out of undermining all things sacred. I can’t help that I’ve been cursed with the cold eye of the satirist. What I can help is how I go about casting that cold eye. Out of respect, I tend to drop the blasphemous humor when I’m around Christian friends and family. Were I to go around berating Christians for their personal beliefs, I’d be as ignorant as any given holier-than-thou televangelist.
Nonetheless, I personally fail to understand why anything should be taken so seriously that it can’t be ridiculed. Ever notice how those folks who balk at political correctness are the very ones to yelp and howl the very second that someone paints a portrait of Jesus in an unflattering situation. I don’t know what to make of that.
Perhaps I’m being a dirty idealist, but I tend to agree with religious writer Alan Watts’s assertion in The Wisdom of Insecurity that: “Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith lets go.” A person sound in faith will be able to digest blasphemy without trying to talk some “sense” into the blasphemer. So long as I’m not blatantly using my blasphemy to harass non-non-believers, my penchant for sacrilege shouldn’t ruffle a single angelic feather.
When I’m not making funnies, when there’s a pointy end to my throbbing rod of free will and godlessness, it’s because I’m responding to sanctimony. This brings us to “vitriol.” Unlike blasphemy, my vitriol does mean to ruffle feathers.
Religion is a multiple-choice question with no certifiably right answer. Let me catch you making cracks about Muslims going to hell, or gays bringing hell on earth. I can play Fenris. There’s no one easier to offend than a Christian.
3. Thou shalt not convert. Conversion is a vile practice. If one religious perspective was truly superior to the countless others, we’d all find that to be the case on our own. Instead, churches have to send out agents to pull in new recruits. Anyone else see a disconnect there?
I’d never try to convert someone to agnosticism. It’s not my place. I found my own religious peace independently, seeking the advice of others only when I found it appropriate. My religious views are mine and mine alone. That’s how it should be. Finding spiritual contentment isn’t accepting what you’ve been told as right; it’s about accepting what you feel as right.
For me, spiritual peace was accomplished by rejecting organized religion. I don’t believe in absolutes; my god is a lack thereof. The day I came to terms with my disbelief in the Christian God remains one of the happiest of my life. The sun was shining; the birds were chirping; the clouds, they were a-parted. And there was no one behind the clouds, there were only the clouds, and I was elated by the fact that there were only clouds. My journey has been my own. If yours takes you elsewhere, there’s nothing wrong with that. Spiritual development is relative.
Conversion tactics are, as I see them, hindrances to individual spiritual development. I find missionaries to be especially heinous. I’d be all for missionary work if there wasn’t hidden behind the veneer of philanthropy an agenda—conversion. And, in regard to the Catholic Church’s missionary work in particular: contraceptives are awesome. Recall that, in The Book of Charles, the Virgin Mary blesses the holy latex tree: “Yea verily, thou are wise to wrapeth thou member before exploring the furrow of Truth.”
It’s Scripture. Don’t question it.
4. Thou art thy own person. I don’t belong to any god. I belong to me. If the love of the ultimate being is contingent on my submission to his will, then he can come and take me himself. I’ll fight every inch of the way—kicking, scratching, biting. Free will was supposedly his gift. I won’t let him take it back. I’m body, mind, and whatever is meant by “soul”—and ‘til death do we part. If I have to spend an eternity in hell for not adhering to a set of unclear and ridiculous rules, then it’ll be my pleasure.
5. Love thy neighbor. I know I’m tucking it dead center, but this is the most important of all of my tenets. Forget lucky seven—there’s only one sin in my doctrine, and it’s failing to love your neighbor.
If my neighbor is a murderous, thieving fiend, then that fiend needs to be removed from society, because he can’t love his fellow man. What do I propose we do with him? I don’t know—that’s another issue. We’re not talking practical matters here; we’re talking about gods, which isn’t altogether different from talking about Sasquatch or leprechauns.
If my neighbor is a promiscuous homosexual who dresses like a vampire, then he’s not sinning so long as he respects his fellow man. From all I know, the Baptist preacher across the street could have a kiddie porn dungeon in his basement.
Loving your neighbor means respecting your neighbor’s lifestyle. If you want to condemn him for not being just like you, then according to my tenets, you’re the foul sinner.
6. Thou shalt not brainwash-eth thy children. Perhaps I’ve come off too severe thus far. Follow me through a little scenario: If I had a child, and if that child wanted to attend church, I’d be fully supportive of that decision. To do otherwise would make me a substandard parent. That being said, I’d also be supportive of my child attending a synagogue or a Wiccan bake sale. If my child wants to cast spells and shuffle Tarot cards, then so be it. Who am I to interfere with my child’s spiritual development?
Certain pockets of the Christian community tend to meet this scenario quite differently. Children in these families are expected to attend religious functions. Moreover, they’re typically expected to attend their parents’ church. When these children engage in off-limits religious practices, they’re reprimanded, punished, and in extreme cases, disowned.
As I see it, good parents are supportive of the religious development of their children. Bad parents assume DEFCON 5 just because little Jimmy listens to Marilyn Manson or dates other boys. Malarkey. Good parents love their children, not what they want their children to be.
7. Whatsoever thou believeth, chances are thou art wrongeth. While I personally think agnosticism to be the only reasonable religious perspective, I’m aware of the fact that there’s no right or wrong when it comes to presuppositions of the infinite. To some, Christ is the answer. For others, Buddha is the Man. Faith is personal, and therefore relative. Moreover, it’s all based on faith, which has no factual basis.
For my hard-edged conservative readers: Have you ever stopped to consider that, as sure as you are that your God is the only true god, there are people out there who are every bit as sure that theirs is the real McCoy? Demonizing others doesn’t make you smart or righteous.
Essentially, discarding every belief set but your own has nothing to do with faith. No, that’d be your ego, hard at work to keep you feeling nice and superior. If there’s one thing I hate more than wet socks, it’s lopsided sanctimony.
8. If Jesus met Glenn Beck, who’s to say he wouldn’t stab him in the face? If you’re banking on a Jesus who’ll sit with you at the country club, drinking Bud and whining about blacks and feminists, then you’re betting on the wrong horse. Yours is a three-legged horse named “Johnny Nowhere,” a horse that unsystematically rams his head into posts and refuses to eat anything that he hasn’t pooped out once already.
Jesus, as he appears in the New Testament, fought authority. He didn’t hate anyone. He wasn’t white. That puts him at odds with those upper-crust morons complaining about liberals and welfare. That wealthy executives cite him as their life-guide makes me want to invent new invectives; the ones we have aren’t harsh enough. I don’t imagine Jesus Christ, supposed savior of mankind, would look kindly on wealthy WASPs complaining that their taxes support low-income families.
Or maybe he does favor rich white men over starving inner-city kids. Who’s to say? No one can say. The “Jesus was . . .” game has no winner. The guy’s long dead. If he does come back, how is the Christian community going to react if the J-man returns a homosexual black man? Do you think the idiot side of the Christian spectrum is going to welcome a gay black man as its savior? He’d be killed all over again, this time by people who claim to love him.
The idiot side of the spectrum doesn’t love Jesus, only their distorted idea of Jesus. Then again, there isn’t an idea of Mr. Christ that isn’t distorted. Is there an official count on the number of contesting translations we have of the Bible? Anyone?
9. Adam’s first wife Lilith got a bum deal. (Self-explanatory.)
10. Take care of yourselves, and each other. Jerry Springer is a prophet. His “Final Thought” mantra rings every bit as true as the words of Mark, John, Paul, Luke Perry, and all of those other guys who supposedly wrote the Bible (and, as most Bible scholars will tell you, actually didn’t write it at all). If we could just learn to take care of one another, to celebrate our common humanity, life would be peachy-keen. But we can’t, and that really, really sucks. What else is there to say, really? World relations suck. Religious intolerance and strife is a major source of that suckiness. I wish that it sucked less, or not at all, but it does, in fact, suck. Worldwide, things really, really suck right now. That’s all.
So concludes the Ten Tenets.
Have I really gone this many paragraphs without making any pop-culture references? Holy mother of God—it’s a miracle! I was going to reference an especially bizarre episode of MacGyver, but you’ll have to wait ’til next time for that reference. Jesus trumps Richard Dean Anderson.
This time.
New River Voice columnist Charles Smith is a native of Southwest Virginia, working stiff, grad student, and a religious provocateur.
13 responses so far ↓
1 Nancy // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:26 am
Can’t see why you think this is a good article or funny, I think you are offending 90% of the New River Valley by writing something this horrible or even thinking it up, for that matter.
2 chuck // Dec 2, 2009 at 10:37 am
very well written !! this one should clean the cobwebs out and get people to thinking…and you are correct charles, the single most important command from christ was to love your neighbor as yourself…if only that ONE could be observed what a difference it would make in the world. as for yourself , Until the lord becomes personal and important to you,continue to find your own way and toot your horn with all your might brother!!(if you yell and scream at him and challenge his existence he just might tap you on the shoulder one day….like he did me.) but until then, I appreciate you not being too timid to be yourself and give us complacent people a reason to feel alive and to be convicted for our own hypocrisy….thanks man !!!!
3 chuck // Dec 2, 2009 at 11:16 am
sorry but I have to disagree on one point with you. when you are raising a child,they have great curiosity and it is good to satisfy that curiosity and not be biased or too critical of their interests….however you as the parent have to set a standard for them to carry them over to their adluthood as they start to think for themselves as adults.for instance, if a child wanted to play in a busy highway, or tell you lies ,or play with your handgun you have the responsibility to set a “standard” for their safety and you have an obligation to teach them the standard for right and wrong. Then when they go out on their own and start making their own rules they have an internal defense to question and to compare what the outside world is teaching them with what they were taught by you,a loving parent who has their best interests at heart.The best a parent can hope for is that their child has the capability to do critical thinking for themselves….something that is lacking in the youth of today…they have a tendency to parrot whatever someone says(especially if it is contrary to what their parents say) and accept it for the truth just because everyone else is…and without realizing it they become drones…so no, I don’t agree with you that you should let a small child dictate to you what influences comes into their lives, but neither should you lie to them or put down anyone else for the choices they have made…just point out that ALL decisions have consequences and they should do “critical thinking” before commiting to any decision !
4 The Man Who Snarls // Dec 2, 2009 at 11:26 am
Children should be given a strong support system, but most spiritualities emphasize respect for others and mindful self-conduct.
Obviously, letting one’s child run with the Manson cult (as Angela Lansbury did, FYI) isn’t sound parenting. However, given that the major religions have similar moral centers–Wicca and new age dogmas included–I don’t think there’s any problem allowing a child to feel out different methodologies.
5 Cougardave // Dec 2, 2009 at 11:53 am
You start by saying that Christians have lofty opinions of themselves, but then you come off the exact same way and bash their beliefs in the same way you say some bash yours? You basically ask for people to accept and provide support to your beliefs, then you refute and bash someone elses? Amazing. I guess there are hypocrites everywhere.
I’ve met many “agnostics” and folks who claimed they didnt believe in God over the years, yet oddly they all seem to turn to him in times of distress or pain. I dont care what name you refer to him as, at that final moment your thoughts turn to him. As the old saying goes, I’ve never met an athiest in a foxhole.
Not exactly the kind of content I would expect to find on something that claims to be the “Voice” of the New River area. I would suggest that Nancy’s 90% is actually a little on the low side.
6 The Man Who Snarls // Dec 2, 2009 at 12:07 pm
It’s funny you should bring up the “turning to God out of fear” business, Mr. Cougar. I was just explaining to my girlfriend last night one of my greatest fears–that, when faced with death or illness, I’ll go back on my principles out of fear and supplicate the very god I don’t believe in.
Of course, turning to higher powers when faced with death is just one way we cope with being finite. I figure I’d pray to all of them–Zeus included–just to cover my bases. Hypocrisy is the human condition.
7 Cougardave // Dec 2, 2009 at 1:20 pm
So since hypocrisy is the human condition, it’s ok? I don’t care what religion you’re considering, what God or Goddess someone claims to worship, or what form of spirituality you subscribe too, the final thought of almost all of them is to be good to each other, help people when you can, and live right. When one group starts bashing another, history shows that bad things happen. If everyone would just accept the fact that we all have different ways of seeing things, and just do the right things, we would all be far better off.
As for your article, I would suggest that if we took out the word “christian” and replaced it with the word “Muslim” or “homosexual” and took the same approach towards them that you took towards the beliefs of christians, there would be a huge backlash and uproar. Would they be right or wrong to be upset? I would say that just as people are right to be furious at the members and statements issued by the Westboro Baptist Church and their “God Hates Fags” and “God Hates America” stance, they would be right to be upset with your article, printed as is or altered.
8 The Man Who Snarls // Dec 2, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I agree with you 100%. We all need to accept one another’s belief sets. Likewise, yes, people can be offended by my views just as they might be offended by anything else.
I am a little miffed at the comparison to those Westboro jackarses, though–I made a point to distinguish sensible persons of faith from the “judgmental whelps.” I personally don’t jive to Christianity, but that doesn’t mean I’m writing off all Christians as the lunatics you’re comparing me to.
My major gripe with religious discourse these days is that atheists and agnostics automatically get designated as offensive or crude. I won’t say I don’t make some crude points here, because I do–I always do.
But I also stress that I’m not attacking all persons of a belief set. I consider your previous comment about all agnostics turning to God at the end more of a judgment call than anything I wrote. I’m sure there have been plenty of people throughout history who have died without ever succumbing to fear-based faith. You seem to imply that all agnostics are mistaken, whereas I only share my opinions on religion and lament the rigidity of organized religion.
I’ll admit that there could be a God…but can you admit that there might not be?
9 Cougardave // Dec 2, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I will certainly admit that could be a possibility.
I dont think thats the case, but it’s a possiblity. That’s where faith comes into play. You either have it or you dont. I dont care how influential someone is, they cannot give a person true faith. They CAN drive them away from it though. I’ve often said that some of my most meaningful moments as a christian (yes, I do consider myself a christian) were on my bass boat in the middle of the lake, or out in the woods rather than in a church. The church I currently attend does a great job of NOT driving people away. Some, unfortunately, do not.
The best thing I’ve ever heard was from a recent movie. “In my heart I know God exists, but I also know that I will never be smart enough to fully understand or comprehend him”.
So with all that said, what would make you….in pointing out the things you did in your article….any better than the very people you call “judgmental whelps”? You are both doing the same thing, right?
Just a thought.
10 The Man Who Snarls // Dec 2, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I considered whether or not I was being a judgmental whelp, and I decided, no, I’m not at all. In fact, I’m confused as to whether or not you even read the article. You seem to be working from the notion that I state that all Christians are stupid and wrong, when in reality, I distinguish and even praise people of faith who are respectful of other belief systems. And how am I comparable to gay-bashing religious institutions when I admit that I’d be fine with my child attending church? I’m sorry, Mr. Cougar, but that simply doesn’t compute.
This talk about hypocrisy is laughable, because you’re doing the same thing I am, albeit from the opposite side.
I’d even go as far as to say that you’re being even more pig-headed toward the opposition to your belief set than I am in my article, which is really saying something: “I dont care what name you refer to him as, at that final moment your thoughts turn to him. As the old saying goes, I’ve never met an athiest in a foxhole.” That’s not being very respectful of atheists, sir. The existence of God isn’t evident. Atheists have just as much a chance of being correct in their ideas as a Christian does. I’m sure many people pass without surrendering to the fear of God. I too like to believe in some sort of ineffable higher power, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go around accusing atheists of copping out.
Either neither of us are being “judgmental whelps” and hypocrites, or both of us are. Either way, I guess it is in our (human) natures, eh?
Just a thought.
11 psuedonym // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:54 pm
As someone who has been an agnostic-atheist (depending on who you talk to and what definitions they use) since I was a young girl, I have to say that I have faced my worst fears and never turned to God or any other diety for help once. Therefore, that whole foxhole saying has always baffled me. It never occurred to me to do that whole praying while in danger thing for one reason. God never helped me even when I was the good pious kid that always said my prayers, so why would he help me when I do not believe in him. I think the reason why no christians or anyone of the main faiths found any atheists in foxholes is that they didnt bother to look hard enough or lets face it ….they dint care to find them. Mr. Snarls I liked the article. It brought up some interesting points that I had not thought of myself. I respect anybody’s choice to chose their own faith. I realized that, while your “ten tenents” was probably a catchier title, I have one tenet: Respect EVERYONE and be open to their choices (If they make choices that harm others needlessly then they do not qualify as a person and therfore you can waive their right to respect)
12 Tracey Mattson // Dec 3, 2009 at 9:13 am
Charles, you may be a little rough around the edges at times, but this is still good stuff. Thanks for saying what’s been on my mind for years, even though I’m just now feeling brave enough to voice my thoughts on the subject. I’m tired of keeping my mouth shut or simply nodding like a bobble-head in order to avoid the wrath of hypocritical zealots!
13 chuck // Jan 4, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Bravo ! Now,with all that said, let’s look at the big picture. we all live in a land where free people can be who they want to be for the most part. Even though we all may have different views,the important thing is to all be on the same page when it comes to protecting this place where we all have these freedoms. whether the enemy is foreign or in our own land(govt.?).A family will argue amongst themselves, but will unite agaist a common enemy. so let’s all remember that we are all “family”and not lost “individuals”. A right denied to one of us puts us all in danger. So can’t we all get along ?
Leave a Comment