A couple years ago, I started out the WES year with a platform address about whether we were a secular nation or a Christian one. Then, and still now, I was struck by the number of people who thought we were entirely one or the other: the Christians who went on TV to complain about how the entire nation was becoming horribly secular, the atheists who sued various groups in complaint of the overwhelming and inappropriate Christianization of America. Surely, I thought, America can't be both too secular and too Christian?
When I spoke about this two years ago, I tried to explore what made us secular and what made us Christian, and how Ethical Culture--with its emphasis on diverse beliefs and united action--could bridge the differences. But I'm thinking now that I was barking up the wrong tree.
Because it's almost as if we want to be justified in thinking we're in the minority, want to be the persecuted party. You never hear a secularist talking about all the ways our society is secular, or a Christian noticing that there really is a lot of Christianity around. I guarantee that December will find the Christian pundits railing against the war on Christmas and the secularists writing long diatribes against the fact that you can't escape Christmas. I'm not saying individuals and groups don't experience persecution--they certainly do, at times--but I don't think it's ever quite as bad as the pundits would argue.
So my question today is--what is it about us that wants to be persecuted? Do we get points somewhere for being the most put upon? Is it just media hype and sensationalism? Or is there something deeper at work, something about American society and the appeal of being the victim? What do you think?
3 comments:
Honestly, I don't think people love being the victim nearly as much as people are accused of doing so ("playing the victim card").
For one thing, there truly has been and still is a *lot* of tragedy and wrong in the world, and the people experiencing genocide/war/abuse/hate crimes/etc. are certainly victims.
And I don't think we need *only* fight the big instances of victimization, because the big and little don't happen in vacuums but are related. Full citizenship means more than "not being burned at the stake," or "not being slaves."
The golden rule can be applied to human rights and social issues: be willing to grant others the same rights that you claim for yourself. If you want a right or concession that you don't think should be granted to other groups, then perhaps you are asking for too much.
The atheists who fought against the inclusion of the "9/11 cross" in the museum were, in my opinion, asking for too much. They felt that if the cross were included, then a symbol from all other religions would need to be included. But it was only the cross that was found among the rubble. If a cross and a humanist symbol had both been found, and only the cross were being displayed, they would have more of a case.
On the other hand, when references to Christianity or a god are deliberately put in our pledge or on our currency, that is different from a found, real-life artifact being displayed in a museum.
The debate often gets reduced to Christians versus secularists, when in fact human history has more religious options than anyone could ever memorize. For some people, "in God we trust" is problematic because they don't believe in a god; for others, the quote doesn't resonate because they trust in multiple gods. Coming to a fair solution to all these issues would benefit, I think, from looking at majority and minority rights in a religiously pluralistic nation, rather than it being "us versus them" (secularists versus Christians).
If we are not hearing enough of the positive ("wow, there sure is a lot of [my religion] around!") maybe we need to talk about it more. I know I often I reflect on how lucky I am to live in a place where, among numerous other blessings, I can't be jailed for what I think.
I don't ever want to escape Christmas (well, maybe I do when it's not even Halloween yet), but I want to see some other holidays too.
Studies show that we have an amazing capacity to hone in on the "facts" that reinforce our world view and ignore or doubt the ones that don't. The facts are irrelevant, especially when people see themselves as victims in this scenario and it becomes an emotional. (My blood pressure is going up just thinking about Bill O'Reilly's accusation that Christmas is getting sidelined. Ha! Is he in a cave from Oct 31-Jan 6?! See...it's happening...)
I've got family members who have been posting comments on facebook on this, very angry about those militant atheists, as they see it. I need to figure out a way to frame the argument. I've been thinking of asking "would it be different if they found an image like the Star of David or crescent at the site?" But that doesn't feel like the right approach. How do you set aside the facts and make an emotional appeal that bridges the gap here?
People may not "want" to feel persecuted, but it certainly can become a habit. I think the core problem is insufficient empathy: we feel the attack much more keenly when our views are disrespected than when someone else's are.
Post a Comment