"If You Don't Like It, Leave"

The blog over at onegoodmove.org has an interesting clip up dealing with perceptions in America of atheists, especially by Christians. The most interesting part for me was towards the end, when an atheist and a Christian are discussing the printing of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency. The discussion had been rather friendly up until this subject came up, with the Christian at one point even apologizing for the general negativity of Christians towards atheists. But as soon as the issue of what to print on money came up, the Christian man insisted that he liked that phrase on the currency, and refused to acknowledge that such a proclamation of faith could be disturbing for atheists.

The conversation got even more interesting when the atheist asked a hypothetical question: What would the Christian man think if the money said "There Is No God" on it? The Christian man, who had up until then been understanding and sympathetic, immediately became confrontational, and refused to even consider the hypothetical. When the atheist related that the current phrase on American money is as disturbing to him as would be a denial of God to a Christian, the Christian man says "If you don't like it, move." This of course is amazing because the man had just moments before been very sensitive and reasonable, and because it assumes that America is in some way an officially Christian country, in which non-Christians should submit to Christianity or leave.

The most interesting aspect of this exchange was not the specific subject being discussed, but the general attitudes of the atheist and the Christian. The atheist was understanding and respectful of the Christian's faith, and the Christian was similarly respectful until the atheist brought up a subject -- changing the phrase on currency to say "There Is No God" -- that the Christian perceived as threatening to his beliefs. The first aspect of this that is interesting is the general difference in outlook between the two people -- the atheist or "freethinker" seemed committed to understanding all viewpoints and discussing subjects objectively, while the Christian did the same except when the subject changed to one that triggered a defensive, emotional response.

This is not to say that atheists are always more objective or understanding than Christians, but it raises an important point regarding emotional attachment to ideas, especially religious and political ideas. The exchange described above is repeated in millions of different ways by people everywhere, especially in discussions of religion or politics. When people hold certain beliefs so closely that they personally identify with them -- as is common with religious and political beliefs -- most people respond emotionally and irrationally to anything they perceive as a challenge to their cherished views.

This is seen very commonly in politics when someone criticizes some action of the U.S. government, and is told that if they don't like it, they should leave the country. Of course this argument is ridiculous -- surely the Christian man in the example above wouldn't suggest that someone should leave the country because they oppose the legality of abortion -- yet it reflects an attitude of political and religious intolerance that thrives in an atmosphere of nationalism, partisan politics, and a general "us-and-them" mentality. The idea that everyone in a country should submit to the prevailing religious beliefs and government policies is as deep-seated as it is dangerous. Within this knee-jerk urge to impose standards and oppose differences are the seeds of totalitarianism and fascism.

Ironically, the people who most frequently invoke "American culture" and "American principles" which they propose should be universally held by all Americans are also those most horrified by the idea of Islamic extremists expecting non-Muslims to submit to their Islamic codes. The same kind of worldview lies beneath both tendencies. Americans seek to universalize their values and way of life -- be it Christian, democratic, or something else entirely -- just as Islamic extremists seek to impose strict Islamic codes of conduct on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. While the two tendencies differ insofar as Westerners have been taught to respect individual rights, the same urge towards homogeneity animates both movements. Western culture has grown and prospered specifically because it has sought to suppress such totalitarian urges, however politicians and ideologues still appeal to this dangerous tendency in order to build support, spread fear and nationalism, and secure control over various social forces and political tendencies.

Those who value freedom would do well to look out for this creeping fascist tendency and learn how it is used by the powerful to manipulate and control.