Monday, January 7, 2008

After The War

What happens after the war?

After World War I, “production had begun again and it was thought that better times were coming.” And then Hitler rose to power.

What happens so often after a war? Is there reconciliation? No. What happens after the war is preparation for the next war.

Is the US going to win the “war on terror”? How is that war being fought? Will it succeed if the “war on terror” becomes a “war on Islam” or a “war on the Middle East” or a “war on Arabs”?
I am proud of my country. I love America. I love the freedom it entails. I love the opportunity to eat new foods, to speak new languages, to read books I haven’t read before, to see movies I haven’t seen before, the freedom to own what I like, the freedom to live where I like and worship (or not worship) what I like. I love the freedom to engage with others, even if sometimes those engagements will end in argument or dislike, just as I love eating new foods that might not agree with my stomach.

But why was it that Hitler too cried out against “Internationalism?” Who else cries out against “Internationalism” and is it for the same reason?

There are two frequently recurring arguments that sometimes come up whenever people don’t have anything good to argue about and instead want to get down to the ethos of things. “Einstein was a Christian!” “Einstein was an atheist!” “The founding fathers were Christian!” “The founding fathers were Deist!” “George Bush is a NAZI!” “Hitler was a Christian!” “Hitler was an atheist!” “Hitler was a pagan who worshiped one of those fake gods!”

I do find it interesting, though, that when authors, creative people, look to creating some sort of artistic representation that seems to mirror or depict Hitler in some way, he frequently seems to be explicitly atheist. Hitler would not have agreed with a slogan like “No Gods, No Kings. Only Men.” as the authors of “Bioshock” use.

Quite frankly, I like that slogan. “No Gods, No Kings. Only Men.” The end of World War I was in many ways the end of the God-Kings, the long line of leaders who were believed to be leaders often because of their appeal as God-Kings. Our lives are those where there are No Gods, No Kings.

But this need not be a terrifying dystopia as in Bioshock, or as in 1984, or as in so many other dystopias.

I’ve heard reports that most people would rather vote for a gay black Jew than an atheist.

After all, it hardly matters what Hitler was. What we do know is that Stalin was an atheist, and he killed more people and therefore his actions were worse than that of Hitler anyway, QED. Therefore all atheists are evil. QED. Besides, the Chinese are atheist and they’re the enemy, QED.

Why is this? What does this come from? How many times must I hear that eternal echo: “I don’t understand how an atheist can have morality.”

If God gave man free will, then man does not need to believe in God to still have that Free Will and have as much capacity to make good and just decisions as a Christian, even from a Christian perspective.

America is not founded on the 10 Commandments. America is founded on the Beatitudes. If you don’t understand the distinction, you’re not a good Christian or a good American. [Kidding… Sorta.]

But I’m drifting from my point again. God is not necessary for morality; or, if you think it is, then your conception of morality is useless.

Even the most devout Christian does not consort with God for the majority of decisions that they make. They may pray, and the confidence they gain from that praying may give them faith in their own decision, but only the extreme radical few would ever say that God told them what to do.

An atheist is just as capable of reading the Bible and judging the moral arguments in it as much as anyone else, and choosing which ones they interpret as being true and important.

I do not mean for this argument, for this series, for this blog, or anything else to appear to be a manifesto for atheism. I do not believe that a sole manifesto for atheism is possible; atheism is easily as diverse and multi-faceted in its moral principles as the monotheistic religions in all their branches and sects. Atheism is not central to anything; atheism is not something that can be built upon. I am not even an atheist. I am not part of any atheist alliance or empire or anything else. I am a person who is aware that he has a choice, and use the processes of my own mind to inform my decisions, just as anyone else does.

You too have a choice. Some people never realize that they have a choice. Some do, some know they have a choice, and choose to believe in whatever God they choose to believe in. I respect that. But I want all people to know that they have a choice, I want all people to think about what governs their life, so that when they reach a critical decision they have the tools they need to make the best possible choice.

Some of my arguments in my past few essays on suicide boil down to a question of whether we have personal ownership of our bodies and minds, and whether our lives are ours alone. In order to say that suicide, for instance, is wrong, we inadvertently take the view that they do not own their own lives. Why do students attack schools? Because they feel like the school owns them—not that they own the school. They attack the Master because they feel like slaves. Just as the mind attacks the body that it feels enslaved by. Just the same, to say that suicide can ever be “right” we might have to take the view that each man is an island. Men are not islands. No one lives for long completely alone. Every man has a mother, every woman has a father.

This is not the final draft of this post, this is not the full explanation of my project, but it is a start.

No Gods, No Kings. Only Men.

Do not hang it on a banner, sing it.

2 comments:

Sam Urfer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sam Urfer said...

"America is not founded on the 10 Commandments. America is founded on the Beatitudes. If you don’t understand the distinction, you’re not a good Christian or a good American. [Kidding… Sorta.]"

I find this interesting, and true actually.

I wouldn't vote for an atheist nominee for president. This is not because I think that atheists are incapable of making sound moral judgments, for I know several ethically impeccable atheists and agnostics. It is the same reason I wouldn't vote for a person who worshiped the sun god Ra: there comes a point where ones experience and conception of reality differs to such a great extent from mine that I cannot in good conscious *choose* to be led by them.

Similarly, many would refuse to vote for Mike Huckabee because his religious beliefs are incompatible with their basic conception of reality (though this is naturally a smaller group). This is their right in a democracy, where one has both the right and moral obligation to choose the country's leaders. If I found myself in a (theoretical) hereditary monarchy where the king was an atheist, I do not believe he would necessarily do a worse job than a Christian one, but then it wouldn't be my *choice* that gave him power.

In a democracy, people will vote for candidates they can connect with, and belief in God is so basic to many people, that radically different opinion is a natural deal-breaker or maker. It is somewhat different in terms of denomination or sect, as there is ecumenical common ground that a candidate can use to bridge gaps.

Christopher Hitchens is psychologically incapable of building a bridge of good faith to believers (admittedly, he is an extreme example, but still).