For the benefit of new readers of this column, I will state at the outset a particular bias when it comes to this month’s subject. Regular readers will have already learned of this bias.
While quite churched in my younger years I now identify as agnostic. I have issues with “The Church” and organized religion in general. I vacillate between a desire to be fully atheist yet deal with a nagging sense that to do so might compromise how I spend eternity. I don’t outright reject the notion of a Deity, an afterlife or a conscious eternity (as opposed to oblivion) but am not sure I fully accept the concepts, either. Being agnostic hedges my bets with that whole eternity thing.
My religious process has been complex and would take up too much space to go into here. And my process isn’t the point. The point is to clarify that I understand faith, am familiar with Scripture, and understand being a practicing Christian (and hopefully, by extension, practitioners of other religions).
The issues I have with Christianity are not so much in regards to the faith per se, although those exist, but have more to do with how certain Christians choose to practice that faith. I make a distinction between “Christian” and “Christianist.” It is mainly the latter I have issues with - the rigid, sanctimonious, Right-wing, bigoted and condemnatory manifestation of the faith that those of us who have fought for GLBTQ rights and other liberal causes have so often encountered.
As an activist, I have had public and sometimes tense confrontations with various representatives of “the Church”, including a certain bishop as well as a high profile imam.
However, despite what many may see as my “anti-Christian” stance, which is a rather shallow reading of my position, I have always maintained people have a right to their beliefs as long as those beliefs do not interfere with my life or my beliefs or those of others. There is room in a liberal democracy for a variety of views and approaches.
I take issue with blanket attacks against Catholics or Pentecostals, for instance, despite the issues I have with them. To me, dogma is fair game for debate and discussion and I am highly critical of much of the dogma within Christianity, be it Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant.
I also think it is reasonable to criticize certain practices. However, here it gets a bit murky as it is too easy to slip into bigotry. Being anti-Catholic, for instance, is no different than being anti-Semitic or Islamophobic. Bigotry is bigotry however it manifests itself. Informed dissent or disagreement is one thing. Blanket attacks against a particular faith are something else.
There is much in how Christianity is presented in North America that I find offensive. However, as a civil libertarian and an advocate for equality I am aware the offence is my issue. If I am offended by seeing a massive “Jesus is Lord” sign on the side of the Church of the Nazarene downtown, the approach is not to force the church to remove it because I happen to find it offensive but for me to learn to tolerate it, if not actually accept it being there. Does the slogan harm me? No. Does it force me to adopt beliefs I do not hold? No. It is no different, when you come right down to it, than having the right to display a Rainbow Pride flag or carry a placard supporting gay rights in the annual Gay Pride Parade. Freedom of expression and belief cuts both ways.
Where I take issue, however, is when religion spills into the secular sphere, whether it is a temple, synagogue, church or mosque or cleric doing it, or secular humanists choosing to take their issues concerning religion into the public sphere.
The atheist/agnostic campaign to emblazon the sides of buses with “There probably is no God, so relax and enjoy life” is therefore likewise offensive to me.
I see it as a pointless, and needless, provocation for one thing. What is to be gained by such a campaign? Will seeing this splashed across public transit suddenly convert, if that is the word, individuals to question the existence of God and embrace agnosticism or become atheist? Of course not. It’s a cheap and rather tacky publicity stunt, and I find that offensive.
Proponents say it is to open dialogue. Bull. It is clearly designed to elicit a reaction, not a response. What dialogue needs to be opened here? Dialogue infers some sort of mutually agreed resolution. It seems pretty clear no such resolution will ever occur between people of faith and those who reject faith. Living together in peace and allowing each to hold their particular views is valid and, in Canada, we have that. What’s the point of wiggling a stick into a hornet’s nest other than to rile up the hornets?
True, there is a freedom of speech issue here. Humanists (amongst whom I count myself) are free to express their secularism as much as any religious group is free to express their faith, and both camps do. But on the sides of a bus?
Calgary Transit is a public service and as such should remain neutral in areas such as religion and politics. I see no reason for Calgary Transit to accept such ads, from either side. It would be, I would suggest, perfectly within their rights to say, “You know what? This is going to offend some of our riders and others who have to see the ads. It’s an unnecessary provocation. So, no, we’re not doing it.”
This is not censorship. By disallowing such ads to be displayed through a publicly funded venue, from either side, is not disallowing the debate/discussion/dialogue to occur...there is ample opportunity to engage in such debate in any number of spheres in our society and rightly so. On the sides of a bus strikes me as perhaps not the most appropriate place to do so.
To be clear, I would be equally offended seeing a “Christ is Risen,” “Allah Akbar,” ads for Hare Krishna or quotes from the Torah, Talmud or Vedas splashed across a city bus. Religious billboards offend me, too, and this is no different.
I respect all these religions. They have the right to exist and practice without molestation; this is not only a constitutional right enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is a moral and ethical right as well. This does not, however, necessarily translate into covering the sides of a public bus, bus stop bench, or any other publicly-funded venue, even if they pay for the ads themselves, with proselytizing advertisements. Neither do slogans promoting the non-existence of a Deity. Public transit was not designed to be a vehicle for a slap in the face.
It’s tacky, tasteless, and gauche. Ads for Wendy’s Hamburgers or local radio stations, fine. Leave it at that.
