Letting Marginalized Groups Speak for Themselves

I have a lot of privilege. I recognize this about myself.

I am white - very white, actually, with blonde hair and blue eyes. In high school, other people sometimes described me as Aryan. (I assumed they meant to imply that if I had lived in Nazi Germany, I would have so perfectly fit the description Hitler wanted for his new master race that not only would I have been spared, but possibly celebrated and married off to some prominent Nazi official in need of a respectable looking wife or something. The way they said it made it seem like a compliment, but it was a very strange compliment, and made me a little uncomfortable.) My point is - I could never pass for anything but white. I am so white that even among white people my whiteness is "fascinating" (or possibly intimidating). I have no way to fathom what it actually feels like to be a person of color in this country, because so much of my life experience has been that of white privilege. I can try to empathize, but there is no way I will actually ever understand.

I am female. And while this means I lack male privilege, I do still have cisgender privilege. My body and gender identity match. I also conform to many female appearance stereotypes - my hair is long, my fingernails are long and sometimes painted, and I often wear dresses and skirts, earrings and necklaces. I've never been misgendered. I can't truly understand how it would feel to have a disconnect between who I wanted to be and who I looked like on the outside.

I am straight. I am married to a white man. I never had to come out to my family or friends, or felt ostracized from my religion because of my sexual preferences, or had a stranger make incorrect assumptions about my sexual orientation, or felt that my relationship with my husband was somehow unacceptable or morally wrong. I'll never really know what it's like to be gay, bi/pansexual, or asexual.

I was raised Christian in a Christian-majority nation. My religion's holidays matched the school calendar. I was exposed to the traditions and cultural practices that remain entrenched in American society - and it was never required of me to learn any others. Though I chose to step away from Christian beliefs as I grew up, I still have that outward Christian privilege to fall back on if I chose to - unless I specifically admit that I don't believe in God and would rather identify as atheist, no one would know or assume that about me. I don't really know what it's like to belong to a different religion, a religion without privilege (though I've seen some glimpses, working as a graphic designer at a large Reform Jewish synagogue).

I grew up in a middle class family. I have never known real poverty. Even when my dad was unemployed for 15 months during the recession, I never really wanted for material things. Throughout my life, educational resources were readily available to me if I wanted them. I went to a local state school, was lucky enough to get scholarships and have a lot of my expenses paid for by family members and my (very) part-time jobs, and graduated with virtually no student loans. I'm 28 years old and my husband and I became homeowners five years ago. I don't know what it's like to lack class privilege. Even when it felt like maybe I didn't have it growing up, I really did. I've always had it, and still do.

I'm also healthy (relatively so). I look healthy from the outside. I have poor eyesight, so I wear corrective glasses - but there is no real stigma attached to wearing glasses, so that's irrelevant. And no one could guess any other chronic ailments I might have - unless I told them - because they are not noticeable, nor significant enough to impact my day to day life. I do a lot of preventive behaviors to keep the threat of LADA at bay (latent autoimmune diabetes in adults), because my glucose is slightly elevated. But it's never really been bad enough to be even officially labeled "diabetes," let alone impact my life much. And any mental health/emotional issues I'm working through also don't outwardly influence my daily functionality. I have ability privilege, and have no idea what it's really like to be discriminated against based on my ability (or appearance of my ability).

My point is that I'm not exactly an ideal candidate to talk about a lot of these issues - race, gender, sexuality, religion, class and ability - which I just spent several months addressing with colored pencil drawings and blog posts. I want to use my privilege to draw attention to these topics that warrant discussion, if I can. But I also want to be careful not to speak for these oppressed groups. I don't want my voice to drown out theirs, and I don't want to presume to know their experiences or what the best steps would be to help them moving forward.

This is perhaps the most difficult thing privileged people like myself face in trying to help the unprivileged. We want to help - but often don't quite know how to help. We spend so much time patting ourselves on the back for taking on liberal causes or doing good in the world that we neglect to recognize that we've painted ourselves as "savior" figures. Marginalized groups don't need us to "save" them - they just need us to shut up and listen. It shouldn't be up to us to give them more rights; it is instead our job to support them and help draw attention to their cause from the sidelines while they take the rights they deserve. We are meant to be allies, not leaders.

Marginalized means they have been relegated to the margins. It's our turn to stand in the margins instead, and allow oppressed groups an opportunity to assert their own voice.

I feel a bit like a fraud when I start talking about politics or social issues too much. I'm not an expert. I barely even follow details of what is going on in the world. (To be honest, there's just been too much bad news lately that it's been overwhelming. And I'm lucky enough that I have the privilege to tune all that shit out when it overwhelms me. But that is another discussion for another time.)

It is precisely this reason that my message in this "Stronger Together" series is so vague. My drawings celebrate the differences found in humanity and show a symbolic floral arrangement in which all flowers (all people) have equal weight in filling out a bouquet - regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion, social class, or ability. It is a hopeful idea that could have just as easily been drawn a hundred years ago or a hundred years in the future as drawn today. It doesn't reference specific topical events, and it doesn't try to speak for marginalized groups. It just showcases a utopia in which all people have their own equal voices with which to speak.

It tells people where I stand - on the side of tolerance and love and acceptance, on the side of allies, on the side of hope for a better tomorrow - without presuming that I have any real answers, without taking a clear leadership role, and without even referencing many specifics. Maybe this isn't enough; maybe as an ally I could have done more. But this is where I'm at in my journey right now. I am erring on the side of Not Doing Enough out of concern for overstepping. This is the extent that I feel capable of.

I do feel more qualified to talk about gender and religion, because these are areas that I feel I have more personal experience in. I don't have male privilege and never have, and I gave up Christianity to label myself an Atheist (an Atheist who married into a Jewish family, an Atheist who works at a Reform Jewish synagogue), so I don't have as much religious privilege anymore either. I can more comfortably talk about these issues and state where the problems lie - because I've witnessed them myself and because I am one of the marginalized who deserve to have their voices heard.

But even here, I often want to step aside to let those with intersectional oppression speak. I can only speak to my experience as a white, cisgendered, straight woman; women who are black or gay or transgendered (or all of the above) face much greater oppression than anything I've lived through.

All humans suffer sometimes. But not all suffering is created equally.

I hope that my "Stronger Together" drawings are adequate at straddling that line - the line between speaking up but not shouting over those less privileged than me; the line between wanting to do something, or say something, but not knowing exactly what to do or say. I hope that their vagueness allow more people to find resonance in them. Often, the more we get into specifics, the more we start to disagree. I am hoping that despite where we are on the political spectrum, or what life experiences we've had, or what privilege we've been granted or oppression we've endured, we can all agree in this very basic premise:

Humans - ALL humans - deserve respect, love, acceptance, acknowledgement, tolerance, and to have their voices heard.

Especially those who have traditionally been denied such things, who have a lack that needs to be filled.

Finished "Stronger Together" Series

My "Stronger Together" series consists of six 19"x25" colored pencil drawings, each created with Prismacolor pencils on black Canson Mi-Teintes paper.

The general concept behind the drawings is this: We humans can be labeled, divided, segregated, and categorized in a myriad of different ways, including (but not limited to) race, gender, sexuality, religion, class, and ability. Often, with these six categories in particular, certain subgroups have been historically/traditionally thought of as "lesser," while other subgroups are thought of as inherently better, stronger, or smarter - and are therefore given more opportunities, more privilege, and more power. This is, to use a profound phrase, absolute bullshit. People don't have more or less inherent worth than others just because of the families they were born into, their genetic code, their preferences, their life experiences, or the choices they make. We are ALL human, and we ALL matter and deserve respect. In fact, we matter not despite our differences, but because of them.

Floral arrangements are not melting pots. They do not blend all varieties together into a muddy brown soup. They are made greater by the sum of their parts, while still showcasing each beautiful part that makes up the whole. And so I chose to use drawings of floral bouquets, each made up of two dozen different flowers, to demonstrate the rich variety of the human experience, as it relates to those six categories.

**

RACE BOUQUET (STRONGER TOGETHER)

I worked on this drawing way back in April, utilizing 31 different colored pencils. The bouquet consists of a wide range of flowers available in "skin tone shades" to demonstrate different races of people living and working side by side, in harmony, to create a beautiful, multicultural community.

• Click here for the list of flowers used in this bouquet.
• Click here for more images of the final drawing (and links to pictures of the step-by-step process and detail shots).

**

GENDER BOUQUET (STRONGER TOGETHER)

This tri-tonal drawing was created in May using 30 different colored pencils. Here, I used "traditional" color stereotypes (pink for girls, blue for boys) and color theory (which recognizes that purple is the color created by mixing pink and blue together) to represent the spectrum of all genders in a symbolic floral bouquet.

• Click here for the list of flowers used in this bouquet.
• Click here for more images of the final drawing (and links to pictures of the step-by-step process and detail shots).

**

SEXUALITY BOUQUET (STRONGER TOGETHER)

In the month of June (Pride Month), I finished this colorful drawing, which required a total of 39 different colored pencils. This "color wheel" bouquet includes all the colors of the rainbow (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple) to symbolize the beautiful arrangement made when all people identifying as/experiencing different aspects of human sexuality are included equally. This includes people with little or no sexual desire, as well as those who crave it all the time; people who yearn for only physical intimacy and those who find fulfillment in emotional intimacy and long-term relationships, people experienced and not experienced in a wide variety of sexual behaviors, and of course people at all places of the LGBTQIA spectrum.

• Click here for the list of flowers used in this bouquet.
• Click here for more images of the final drawing (and links to pictures of the step-by-step process and detail shots).

**

RELIGION BOUQUET (STRONGER TOGETHER)

This completed piece, drawn with 28 different colored pencils in July, combines flowers that are symbolically associated with modern or ancient religions (including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, various Native American religions, and/or Greek/Roman mythology), with flowers that symbolize Atheism, Humanism, or Science, to present a utopian arrangement of religious tolerance and togetherness.

• Click here for the list of flowers used in this bouquet.
• Click here for more images of the final drawing (and links to pictures of the step-by-step process and detail shots).

**

CLASS BOUQUET (STRONGER TOGETHER)

In August, I employed 26 different colored pencils to complete this drawing, which symbolizes different social classes through art of two dozen flowers. America is made up of very poor people, very rich people, and everyone in between. It is important that we acknowledge and give equal respect to all of these people, helping those who need assistance and remembering that we're all human.

• Click here for the list of flowers used in this bouquet.
• Click here for more images of the final drawing (and links to pictures of the step-by-step process and detail shots).

**

ABILITY BOUQUET (STRONGER TOGETHER)

The sixth and final drawing in this series used 29 colored pencils and was completed in September/October. Employing flower symbolism and visual cues (such as browning, aging, wilting, discoloration, or minor imperfections), I compiled two dozen flowers that would symbolize differences in physical, emotional, and mental ability. We all have different limitations, skills, and talents (not all of which are immediately or outwardly apparent) and we should work to respect and accommodate everyone so that we can better work and live together.

• Click here for the list of flowers used in this bouquet.
• Click here for more images of the final drawing (and links to pictures of the step-by-step process and detail shots).

In Defense of Atheism

There's a lot of stigma around identifying as an atheist in this country - to the point where people avoid using the "a-word" to describe themselves, even if they truly don't believe in any deities, or belong to any religions. (There's a similar phenomenon with the word "feminist" - people who believe all genders should have equal rights and opportunities still shy away from calling themselves feminists, just because there is a stigma attached to the word.)

In fact, about 9-10% of Americans say they do not believe in God, but only 1.6% are willing to label themselves "atheists." (From Wikipedia) But why? Why are people so afraid to call themselves atheists - even if, looking at the definition of atheist, they clearly are?

For one thing, atheists have an automatic second-class status in this country. As Berlinerblau writes in his book How To Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom, "the nonreligious have always had to fight for the right to be considered equal in America. This has much to do with the Constitution's inability to take them into consideration." The Bill of Rights maintains that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - but says nothing on the topic of the free exercise of no religion. 

For another thing, people shy away from the "atheist" label because a series of common misconceptions that have grown to be associated with the term. A 2006 study involving a poll of 2000 households in the U.S. found that atheists were the most distrusted minority group - more distrusted than Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexual individuals, rapists, and other groups. (Also from Wikipedia) We hear that atheists don't believe in anything, are evil and immoral, and hate or know nothing about religion. Never mind that none of these are true - if society as a whole perpetuates these ideas often enough, they start to seem true. And because no one wants to be called evil, ignorant, and full of hatred, we also start not wanting to be called an atheist.

Here are some common misconceptions about atheists, and why they aren't accurate:

1. Atheists don't believe in anything.

By definition, atheists don't believe in deities. This includes the God or gods of any religion, past or present, as represented in the stories of those religions. This does not necessarily mean that they don't believe in any aspect of these stories - just that they view them through a historical or literary lens, interpreting them as allegories or mythologies, rather than 100% fact.

Some atheists leave it at that. They refute the existence of any particular God or gods they are familiar with, but allow for the possibility of non-defined deities: unpersonified forces, like Karma, or Destiny, or Fate; generalized spiritualities to alleviate concerns that nothing in their lives is predetermined and even though Someone is not "in control," perhaps Something is. Other atheists refute the existence of these as well.

But everyone believes in something. If you don't believe in guiding forces, you believe in choice and free will and human action (or inaction). Many people (religious and non-religious both) believe in scientific theories, in logic and reasoning, in thoughtful discourse, and in the importance of education. You might believe humans are inherently good, or that humans are inherently evil, or that humans are just inherently human, and that judgments of good or evil are subjective and irresponsible - but each of those is still a belief.

We all find ways to explain our world, and at least some of these require a leap of faith of some kind or another - even if we later find more concrete evidence to back it up. We put our faith in science and the natural world, or in other humans, rather than in gods. We trust each other, or hope we can. We turn to figures of authority. Religious people might turn to the clergy members of their faith; non-religious people might look to their governments, or to experts in whatever field they need advice in - like scientists, doctors, or historians - which they implicitly or explicitly trust.

Some people even group atheists and agnostics together, opining that anyone who doubts or neglects to consider the possibility of the existence of deities is the same as the sort of person who would outright deny gods. But many agnostics do believe - or often believe, or believe in some aspects (but not all) of a certain religion.

To say that atheists don't believe in anything is clearly false. They just believe in different (and sometimes difficult-to-define) things - but things all the same.

2. Atheists are evil and have no morals.

This misconception goes off the idea that because religion offers a set of morals and rules for how to live a good life on earth, anyone who doesn't subscribe to religion will lack such morals and direction. Without religious teachings to guide them (or threaten them with eternal punishment for bad deeds), atheists have no incentive to give to charity, volunteer, be kind to others, or care about their communities. And without didactic religious stories and allegories to demonstrate proper morals, they lack empathy and compassion.

This is blatantly untrue, not least because there are plenty of anecdotal counterexamples of atheists who are generous and kind - and religious people who are definitively not. There are many sources one can use to find examples for how to live a generous life, and religious sources are only one subset. Literature, history, philosophy, music, and art can all teach us how to live by providing us with examples of the past triumphs and mistakes of individuals or societies, by engaging us in thought experiments to imagine different possibilities, and by demonstrating the depth and breadth of human accomplishment. 

Science can also inspire in a variety of ways. Those who study medicine, biology, and anatomy can learn to treasure human life through a deeper understanding of how our bodies work and how fragile yet resilient they often are. Chemistry, physics, earth sciences, the study of the environment, and astronomy can help us explain the earth (and universe) around us and figure out what role humans play (or should play) in it - as a whole and as individuals. You do not need to believe in creationism - intelligent design by a singular or multiple outside guiding force(s), such as God or other deities - to find awe in humans, the human body, the earth, the molecular structures that make up all of these things, or the wide reach of outer space.

You can advocate for the ethical treatment of animals because you believe they are all God's creatures - or you could do so because you've studied zoology or veterinary science, because you've studied the environment and ecosystems, because you've had pet companions over the years, or because you just think animals are adorable.

You can donate to the less fortunate because you believe your God desires all His servants to practice charity - or you could do it because you've witnessed your fellow humans experiencing hardships and been moved to help, or because you've studied your culture (or others) through a larger lens - like through sociology or anthropology or women's and gender studies or history or philosophy - and you know about systems of discrimination and privilege and want to do your part to dismantle them - even if just a little.

There are literally a million reasons (or combinations of reasons) one could use to rationalize a kind deed (or an unkind one). It doesn't have to be tied to religion at all.

Indeed (and this is my bias, I admit), I think many times atheists do MORE to help their communities than religious people do. There are those who believe their good acts will be rewarded in the afterlife (like being accepted into Heaven), or through a series of reincarnations - and so they do good things so they can reap those future rewards. But it can be really hard to work toward such delayed gratification - to do good things now and then have to wait decades or even multiple lifetimes to see the fruits of your effort - and it's frankly not a great motivator for many people. 

Volunteering atheists, on the other hand, are more likely to help their communities or the environment for other reasons - reasons that have a more immediate reward. They'll give money to a homeless person so that that homeless person has money now, they'll work to clean up a riverbank so that there is clean water available to the animal and plant species and the neighboring communities now, they'll do kind things so they can feel good about themselves now. They work to better the earth, and the people on earth, in tangible ways they can witness. Even if it's a larger project that they won't live to see the final result of, they will likely see at least some progress toward their goal. With more immediate gratification like this, it is easier to stay motivated, stay engaged, and continue to do good work. 

Furthermore, people who don't believe in any sort of afterlife rely entirely on their present life on earth. Yes, it can be disheartening and depressing to believe that these few (or many) precious decades we have on earth are all that we will ever have - but it can also be motivating. We have to do all we can now, make our mark on the world now, accomplish everything we want to in our lives now, because this is the only life we have, and we aren't sure how long it will last.

I think the act of living and interacting with others the best and easiest way to learn true compassion and empathy toward fellow humans. At the end of the day, you're not going to learn these behaviors and attitudes by reading them in a book or being chastized from a pulpit. We learn gradually, as babies and children and adolescents and adults. We talk to people who are different from us and we make friendships and forge connections. We learn how to be kind and compassionate through trial and error, and learn to be better people by witnessing the reactions our behaviors illicit. 

Psychology teaches us that we all crave connection and love. This human desire and need is enough incentive to be kind - or to try to be kind, or to find those people who we get along with naturally and form families and friendship units with them, practicing compassion and tolerance at least within the societies we choose to belong to, so that we may continue to belong to them. We don't have to be given reasons to be nice. Many of us inherently want to be. We may need guidance or practice figuring out how best to act, but we are already motivated to try.

Religious and non-religious people alike are therefore capable of generosity, empathy, and kindness, no matter our upbringing. Not everyone takes advantage of these opportunities, of course - but that failing is not limited to atheists. Everyone is also capable of doing "bad" things, making poor decisions, being mean and intolerant to fellow humans, rejecting empathy or compassion, and falling prey to greed, jealousy, and disrespect. They might even do these things because their beliefs (religious or non-religious) sanction such misbehaviors. It would be as much of a fallacy to say that all atheists are evil and morally corrupt as it would be to say that all religious people are. In the end, we are all humans, and all capable of choice and change.

3. Atheists hate religion and people who are religious.

Some atheists are undoubtedly distrustful, disrespectful, or condescending towards organized religions. Some of these atheists might even be passionate enough about these feelings to call it hatred. But it is a misrepresentation to say that all atheists feel this way, or to claim that all atheists wish to ban religion - just as it would be to say that all Christians hate non-Christians, or to claim that all Christians want to ban all religions other than Christianity.

For many atheists, I think any hatred they have is because of the power and privilege religious institutions often have. If people practiced their religion quietly and privately, it would not be nearly as problematic as it is when religious institutions begin to acquire authority and then use that authority to cast judgment on everyone, religious and non-religious included. In this case, it is not the religion itself, but the power it wields, that prompts fear, disgust, frustration, and anger.

I also know a lot of atheists who get very frustrated with staunchly religious people because it seems their religious beliefs close their mind from considering any alternate possibilities. They seem to take everything they've read in their religious texts or heard a religious figure of authority say as truthful without question, failing to think for themselves. These religious people come across as unnecessarily and dangerously stubborn, refusing to think critically. 

But many religious people say the same sort of thing about atheists. Religious people who find comfort in the traditions, rituals, and teachings of their faith find it deplorable that atheists would stubbornly refuse to take comfort in the same things. They see atheists as closed-minded when they refuse to consider the possibility of the existence of God. They assume that atheists take pleasure in shooting down all the evidence they suggest - that atheists are certifiable party-poopers when it comes to religion, determined to prove religion wrong and failing to see the "better," more imaginative, more truthful story.

There's a sprig of truth to both of those viewpoints. Some atheists do chose to deny the existence of deities simply because it's what feels most natural or easiest for them - and some theists do the same, never wavering from the religion they were brought up with, or considering other possibilities. But many don't. Many atheists take years of self-reflection to come to their conclusion, stepping away from faith or religious beliefs they held in the past - and continue to have doubts, even once they decide they're "pretty sure" there is no god. And many religious people are filled with doubt, and spend a great deal of time considering the possibility that their beliefs are wrong - even if on the outside it looks like they are quite settled in their faith.

And then of course, there is the problem that we often hate what we don't understand. We "other" groups that have different beliefs than we do, painting them with the same wide brush and pitting them against us. Atheists are not more likely to do this than religious people; we are all human, and all occasionally (or more often) forget to be compassionate. We would all do well to remember that people are icebergs, and there is always more to them that we do not see.

4. Atheists don't know specifics about religion or think about spirituality.

I touched on this in my previous point, but I feel it's a common enough misconception that it warrants its own set of paragraphs. Many religious people believe that atheists are atheists simply because they do not know better, or have not been properly and adequately exposed to their religion. Religious people often think atheists come from families where no one believes in god, and are therefore heathens who have never believed in god or entertained the possibility. This is simply not true.

In fact, self-reporting polls indicate that about 34% of self-identified atheists were raised Catholic, with further 36% from other Christian denominations. (Source) Still others step away from other, non-Christian faiths. These atheists obviously know something about religion. They may have even once whole-heartedly believed, never thinking (until they did) that they would one day reject certain parts (or all parts) of their religion.

Furthermore, some atheists, even those who grew up in non-religious families, spend a good chunk of their lives delving into religion and looking for some faith - any faith - which might speak to them, give them comfort, and prompt belief. And still others research religion through a scientific, philosophical, or literary lens - finding contradictions in religious texts in order to amass evidence for hearty debates, scrutinizing religious beliefs through logic and reasoning (for the sake of education, reaffirming their conclusions, or creating rousing, thought-provoking discussions with likeminded friends), or learning about the religions that have influenced art and literature throughout the course of history to have a better understanding and appreciation of these great works. 

I would guess that many atheists actually know more about religion than religious people do - because atheists who are interested in religion and have studied such things do so by casting a wider net than religious believers tend to use. Atheists don't have the same biases and preconceived ideas about specifics of a certain religion than people do who belong to that religion; they can often see the bigger picture in ways that people inside of it cannot.

5. Atheists are a homogenous group.

If you've read through all my previous points, you already know this one, so I won't linger too long on it.

Atheists are not all the same. Some once believed but no longer believe in God; others never believed at all. Some study religion and consider the possibilities of believing in different versions of spirituality, while others have no interest in those things. Some hate organized religions - for a variety of reasons - while others are apathetic. Some believe in ephemeral versions of spirituality, allowing for the existence of undefined forces like Fate or Destiny or Karma, while others believe in nothing but the things they can easily observe here on Earth. Some atheists are also secularists (see my previous post on secularism here), but not all. And some seem to live life without morals - but many have just as strong of a moral compass as religious people do (and perhaps an even stronger one).

I realize that, as a self-identified atheist, I'm a little biased. But I would hope that you don't have to be an atheist, or even know an atheist, to recognize that people are not "evil" just because they choose not to participate in religion, don't believe in deities, or are generally uninterested in entertaining the possibility of life after death. 

One of the greatest things about humans is that we are not all the same; it is my hope that we can acknowledge, respect, and celebrate all of our differences - even those we don't personally agree with, or completely understand.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being an atheist, and atheists do not deserve the stigma surrounding them. They also do not deserve to be ignored and excluded from conversations of religion and beliefs. We all do believe in something - insomuch as a belief is one's priority for how to live their life, make important choices, weigh consequences for their actions, forge relationships with other people, and create, serve, and belong to a community - and we all deserve to have those beliefs acknowledged and our voices heard.

The Separation of Church and State

I'm going to start this blog post out with a definition.

Secular: Adjective. Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

Secular means "non-religious." It does NOT necessarily mean "anti-religious." Those are two separate terms. "Non-religious" means that a specific item or institution (a building, a school district, a government, etc.) is not intended for religious use nor influenced by or supported by or affiliated with any religion. It is separate from religion; the two do not come in contact with each other. In reference to a person, it would mean that such a person is not affiliated with any religion, and does not adhere to religious beliefs or practices. 

"Anti-religious" would indicate that more contact is taking place; it hints at active attempts to suppress, alter, or control religion. An anti-religious person would be vehemently against participating in or witnessing religion; they might allow others to participate in religion privately, but certainly not publicly.

A person (and a government) can be non-religious without being anti-religious. There are some models of secularism that are anti-religious - specifically, France's laïcité, where the government actually dictates to its citizens the kind of religion-related clothes and symbols that can be worn in public schools or on public streets.

But when I talk about secularism, and wishing that the United States government was secular, I don't mean the rigorous sort of anti-religious secularism France seems to advocate - I mean only that I wish religion and government were separate entities (or, at least, as separate as they can be), and that I wish the First Amendment of our Constitution was upheld consistently and fairly, so that we all can benefit from its promise.

"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 

That clause was written into our Bill of Rights purposefully, with careful consideration, and despite controversy at the time, because the founders of our nation believed in those words. They knew European history, rife with its past and present religious conflict, and were afraid of repeating its mistakes. 

Some reasoned, as Martin Luther and John Locke had years earlier, that the government did not belong in religious affairs for ethical or spiritual reasons. "Religion," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "is a matter which lies solely between man and his God" - meaning that the government therefore has no right to endorse religion. Jefferson continued, "the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." James Madison went one step further, reasoning that religious governments paved the way for pride and tyranny. He remarked that "superstition, bigotry, and persecution" were the fruits of the "legal establishment of Christianity." These two Founders were in the minority among Americans at that time, going farther than most in their beliefs that the government and religion shouldn't mix. Madison, especially, maintained an extreme pessimism about the social value of religion that few could agree with.

Still, and perhaps more tellingly, the Founders refrained from invoking the scriptures anywhere in the Constitution, despite the fact that they lived in a world culturally immersed in them and absolutely nothing was stopping them from doing so. Clearly, they did not have a "Christian nation" in mind (as so many argue today), and were willing to set the groundwork for a secular government to be constructed.

(All this, by the way, is according to the wonderful book How To Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom by Jacques Berlinerblau, which is amazingly well-researched and chock-full of footnotes and references.)

Despite these beginnings, however, our current government is not very secular. There is often no clear separation of church and state. There are references to God everywhere in our government - in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, printed on our money, and engraved on statues and government buildings all over this country. Other examples are nativity scenes, crosses, or statues of the Ten Commandments on public land, prayers starting public meetings, and prayers in public schools. This might not seem like such a big deal at first glance - but consider how alienating it can feel for someone who does not believe in any god, or someone who does not believe in a singular god, or the Christian capital-G God, to see "In God We Trust" on official government currency and buildings. Who is this "we" that's being referenced, and why are atheists and non-Christians immediately excluded from it?

These types of references to religion (Christianity specifically) are sometimes called "ceremonial deism." When it is challenged in court, it is often upheld by judges, under the reasoning that it is part of our national heritage, and simply tradition/custom at this point, without any overt religiousness. But if there were no passionate religious people behind the continued use of these phrases and these practices, then they wouldn't be defended so fervently in court. And, according to atheist author Greta Christina (http://www.alternet.org/belief/4-ways-christianity-sneaks-our-secular-government-and-why-it-matters), "every one of these 'ceremonial' incursions of religion into government gets used - on the ground, in tangible, real-world ways - to marginalize non-believers, and to treat them as second-class citizens." 

That linked article, by the way, has several examples backing up that claim - specific times when our nation's "In God We Trust" motto and public, government-sponsored prayer have been used to shame, belittle, and award second-class status to non-Christians. It also goes on to explain why, even if these instances WERE just symbols, just traditions, and not meant to be used as a way to discriminate against non-Christians - those symbols still matter. Nothing is too trivial when it is a symptom of a larger issue:

"Are these the most pressing problems facing the nation? No. Of course not... But that doesn't make them trivial. Symbolic issues can have a significant impact. Employers requiring women to wear makeup wasn't the most pressing problem facing the women's movement, but most people understand why it was a fight worth fighting. Segregated drinking fountains and lunch counters weren't the most pressing problems facing the civil rights movement, but most people understand why they were deeply troubling and needed to end. President Obama saying same-sex marriage should be legal had zero effect on same-sex couples' legal rights, but most people understand why the President's statement mattered, and mattered enormously."

Even "surface" discrimination can hurt. And just because something is tradition doesn't mean it still has a place in modern society. If you've seen the responses of civil rights activists to some Southern states still flying the Confederate flag, you know what I mean - seeing those symbols can be painful reminders that the government once (and STILL) endorses awful practices that particularly target marginalized groups. Why should people who belong to those groups, or people who call themselves supporters, allies, or friends, feel comfortable in such communities?

But the government doesn't only use these "ceremonial" instances of religion, either. Look at some of the policies that get passed, or that congresspeople try to get passed; look at some of the rhetoric government officials feel comfortable saying. Look at the religious beliefs that are taught as fact or viable possibilities in public school, such as creationism being taught as a legitimate alternative to evolution, or sexual abstinence being taught to the detriment of educating youth on other methods of birth control or STI prevention. Look at the way Congress impedes medical progress by attempting to curtail stem-cell research or abortion care in the name of religious beliefs. Look at the way the government bends over backward to accommodate outlandish corporate decisions about how to run their companies, compensate their employees, or provide health benefits - all because the CEOs claim their policies stem from religious (read: Christian) beliefs that they hold and desire to practice at work - even if that means coercing non-believer employees into adhering to tenants of a religion they do not support. 

The above examples only touch on a few; there are other very frightening ways in which the government supports Christian privilege in this country - through policies and through finances. Furthermore, several Christian groups lobby the government and influence these policy decisions.

I wish this wasn't the case. I wish our government was not influenced by religion - because when it is, it is inevitably Christianity that does the influencing. I also wish our government didn't support religious institutions - unless it can learn how to do so equally, with equal support given to all religious and non-religious groups (which I doubt is even possible) - because right now, when it does support religion, it is inevitably Christianity that it supports.

These sorts of practices perpetuate Christian privilege, deny people who belong to other religions the same opportunities, and often leave non-religious individuals out of the discussion altogether. Worse, when the government as an institution, or the people who represent it at federal, state, and local levels, model "othering" non-Christian groups by supporting only Christianity or making blanket statements about those who aren't Christian, they seem to sanction religious homogeneity, as well as discrimination, intolerance, and violence toward non-Christians. A government which endorses one and only one religion is one step away from a theocracy - and theocracies can be dangerous things: glorified cults that get away with all manner of atrocities in the name of religion simply because they have the numbers, the means, and the political power to back them up.

My next bouquet drawing will work to show the beautiful arrangement that can be made when all religions (and non-religious groups) are represented. I do not want to erase religion; I just want everyone to have a say. I want everyone's beliefs to be recognized and respected - and part of that is having a government which does not seem to endorse one religion at the expense of other religions, or at the expense of non-religious people. 

So what would a secular government even look like?

For a start, there would be no National Day of Prayer or religious words in the country's motto. There would be no nativity scenes in front of government buildings - because to do so would be to endorse a Christian holiday while ignoring or excluding the holidays of every other religion. The Pledge of Allegiance would return to its pre-1950s rendition - which didn't include the phrase "Under God". Public schools would teach only the topics that experts in those fields give merit to, and not present alternative views without such academic support as being equally worthy of consideration. (The news media, too, could learn from this - increasingly, journalists are presenting all possible opinions on a controversial topic as equally reasonable opinions to have, and thus legitimizing harmful, extremist opinions held only by a small, attention-seeking minority.)

Policies that a secular government passed would not be influenced by religious beliefs, or support other institutions or corporations which tried to coerce non-believers into being subject to the customs or beliefs of their religion. Everyone would be legally permitted to have sex or get married to those of their choice, presuming all parties were consenting adults. All medical procedures would be legal and available, presuming that they had gone through the rigorous trials that any medical procedure is subject to for approval, and no patient would be shamed for making a medical decision about their own life that went against the religious beliefs of their doctor, or coerced into refusing (or taking) medical treatment they wanted to receive (or deny).

Furthermore, if the United States government truly became secular, American Christians would lose a lot of privilege - which would create a more egalitarian society. (For more on Christian privilege, see this previous post. And for more on why a loss of Christian privilege would actually be a good step toward eradicating religious discrimination, read this blog post from Monday.)

I don't say this because I hate Christianity and want it to be eradicated, or because I want Christians to be persecuted. I just don't want Christians to have unfair advantages in this country any more than I want men to have unfair advantages over women, white people to have unfair advantages over people of color, or heterosexual or cisgendered individuals to have unfair advantages over those who don't identify in those ways.

Secularism does not equal atheism, and those who believe a secular government would be beneficial (to people of ALL religions, and to those who are non-religious) can also be religious people in their personal lives. In fact, many who advocate for a more secular government are religious - especially those who belong to minority religions (religions other than Christianity), who are troubled by recent policies of the Christian-controlled government. Even Christians can advocate for a more secular government, if they recognize that there are Americans who don't subscribe to their religious beliefs - Americans who are no less American for doing so. 

Democratic governments should represent all people - not just those belonging to the privileged religion. The best way to do this is to make sure the government is a secular one - and that it stays secular, regardless of which political party currently holds the presidency or congressional majority. Not only is secularism democracy - but it is a hallmark of our democracy, as the founding fathers intended.

That first clause of the First Amendment is so important. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." What is so hard to understand about that? When did the United States government forget this provision? And why did we, the citizens, let it happen - and continue to do so?

Religious Discrimination

Throughout history, people have been ignored, scrutinized, shamed, threatened, and persecuted for practicing a religion other than whatever happened to be the dominant religion in their region at that time. Even today, where outright, obvious persecution is less common, it can be very lonely to have a religious background different from the "mainstream" religious culture of an area. 

In the contemporary United States, Christianity is the dominant religion. As such, many Americans, even those who do not actively practice Christian worship as adults, have been exposed to Christian teachings, dogma, and traditions from a young age. But many others, particularly those whose families immigrated from areas of the world where Christianity is not the dominant religion, do not have this same upbringing (nor want it for their own children). America is a diverse nation, and every religion is represented in its population.

These non-Christian Americans lack religious privilege - their religion and cultural traditions are not seen as standard, their religious holidays are not observed at their places of work, and their government representatives are likely not people who subscribe to their religion. At best, these Americans may have to occasionally explain their holidays to Christian-Americans who are not familiar with any traditions other than their own, and may face minor discrimination, like insensitive comments or erasure of their religion or cultural experiences from mainstream media. At worst, these Americans may experience or witness verbal or physical threats, slurs and hate speech, intimidation, or violence - simply for daring to practice a religion (or look like someone who might practice a religion) other than Christianity.

There is a reason we have words like Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia - but no comparable word to describe prevalent anti-Christian sentiment. Contrary to what some right-wing news programs insist (*cough* Fox News *cough*), this type of systematic religious discrimination does not happen to Christians in America. Any slights that American Christians think they see directed towards their religion are only evidence of a loss of some of the privileges Christianity and Christians have had in America - and a loss of privilege is not the same thing as discrimination. A loss of privilege is in fact necessary for discrimination to be eradicated; all religions cannot be seen as equal when Christianity still holds privileges over American culture, media, and government that other religions do not have access to. (For more on Christian Privilege in America, visit this previous blog post I wrote in 2015.) 

What I'm about to say is going to sound controversial to a lot of people, but it's one of my fervent beliefs: Christianity is not inherently better or more true than any other religion, and does not deserve preferential treatment or privilege - in America, or anywhere else.

If I said a similar statement about white people, or heterosexuals, or men, there would be a lot less controversy. We've progressed enough as a society for most of us to realize that men are not inherently better than women, that people with light skin tones are not inherently better than people with more melanin, and that people with a heterosexual orientation are not inherently better than people who don't identify as heterosexual. This same line of reasoning, however, does not often enough continue into the discussion of religion - and I have a couple theories as to why.

First, it is a requirement of the Christian belief system to insist that there is only One Truth, and they are the only religion that has discovered it. They are not necessarily the only religion that does this, but neither is this mutual exclusivity clause a characteristic of all religions. There are some, especially polytheistic religions (those with multiple gods) or systems that emphasize a general spirituality, which allow for the possibility that multiple religions or ways of practicing spirituality are equally valid. 

Christians believe in only one god - their capital-G God, somehow split into a Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and yet also one, indivisible entity - and that believing in this God is the only way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the glorified afterlife, upon earthly death. Some Christians might allow that it is possible for adherents of other religions to lead a somewhat moral life (many religions have similar teachings for how to conduct oneself on earth, after all), but even if someone were to lead a moral, good life and be easily classified as a "good person," they would not be rewarded after death, according to traditional Christianity. 

It's therefore not much of a stretch for Christians to insist that their religion is inherently better, and truer, than any other religion - because only Christians will get to go to Heaven - and that they thusly deserve special privileges, or are at the very least are entitled to a sense of superiority. They can try to claim religious freedom when they look down on or discriminate against people of other religions, because it is part of their religious belief system to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. And then it becomes sticky. How can we ask Christians to give up their privilege and be more tolerant of other religions, if their religion discourages or forbids it? To them, it seems to be an act of intolerance against their religion to ask them to do so. Many Christians do not want to give up their privilege, and indeed don't think they are in the wrong at all - and it's hard to change if you don't want to. Furthermore, it's hard for outsiders to speak out against such religious egotism - especially if one is concerned about looking hypocritical.

Many Christians don't see it that way, of course. They frame their attitudes towards those of other religions differently - as genuine concern, driven by love and compassion. A Christian might argue that they want everyone to have access to the same privileges Christians do - both the earthly privileges of being a Christian in America and the "afterlife" privilege bestowed on all Christians worldwide who believe in God and Jesus. In a perfect world, they would convert everyone to Christianity so that everyone would be equal. In fact, there would be no distinction between a "privileged group" and "non-privileged group" at all if everyone belonged in the "privileged group." 

The only problem is that this utopian vision supposes that religion is a choice. And if religion is a choice, and there are so many advantages to being a Christian (from the Christian's viewpoint), how do we account for all the millions of people who haven't chosen to convert? Maybe some of them don't know about Christianity yet - and so the Christian's response is to send missionaries around the world, to witness to strangers, to make connections and forge friendships, and try to teach and persuade them. This will convert some. But not all. 

So then what do Christians do? What do they do with those who know Christian teachings, have attended church, have debated religion with friends and family and clergy, and yet still choose not to believe? Or those who immigrate to America, where Christianity is the dominant religion, and refuse to assimilate to it? Or those who are apathetic about questions of religion and spirituality altogether, and won't even listen, partake in discussions, or entertain the possibility of adopting Christian beliefs?

Christians start judging these people, these non-Christians who know about Christianity and yet persist in their previous lifestyle anyway. Christians see such non-Christians as either too stubborn to change, or morally corrupt and having too much fun "sinning" to change. They say, "I tried to show them the truth, but those heathens wouldn't listen." They say, "if they insist on defying me and defying God, then they deserve what they get, and I am not at fault." They wash their hands of their impending discrimination, claiming that deep down they want these non-Christians to change and that they tried to help them, as if those things somehow excuse them from the religious egotism that will soon follow. 

I'm generalizing, obviously. Not all Christians go through the above train of thought, and not all Christians are intolerant of all non-Christians. But many do, and many are - especially the Christians with power and authority, like clergy, politicians, and radio/television personalities. What's worse is that the many Christians who do and say these things would be supported by their churches and Biblical texts if they did. To be Christian is to believe in God (and only a very specific God at that, which includes belief in Jesus) and to think you are superior to those who don't believe. 

I also don't mean to suggest only Christians fall prey to this line of thinking, or that only Christians discriminate against those subscribing to other religions. I'm only singling Christianity out this post because it's the one I'm most familiar with (having grown up in a Christian family and believing in God for the entirety of my childhood and the majority of my adolescence), and because it's the dominant religion in America. In the United States, more often than not, those who discriminate against people from other religions are Christians.

So the first theory for why religious discrimination persists is the very construct of religions - at least those, like Christianity, who insist that there is only one "Right Way" to live and to believe.

The second theory, which I already touched on (because it really does go hand in hand with the first), is that we often view someone else's religion as a choice, but our own religious beliefs as a part of us: something not easily changed, something that we have little choice in. 

Many of us can't imagine subscribing to a different religion than what we grew up with, and to those who go about doing so, it's not an easy process. It involves a lot of self-reflection, and possible psychological, spiritual, emotional, and/or familial upheaval. It involves redefining who we are and who we want to be, through looking at the sorts of questions philosophers have struggled with for millennia: our purpose here on earth, the presence of evil, and the best way to live morally. Our religious beliefs are often at the very core of who we are - and yet, for some religious people, their first instinct when presented with someone belonging to a different religion, or to no religion at all, is to question "why not mine"? That is, "what is it about this person that prevents them from choosing to convert to my religion instead?" Converting to a different religion might not be an "easy" choice to make - but it is technically possible.

The fact that we see religion as a choice is so important, and I think contributes a great deal to why religious discrimination is still so prevalent - in America and throughout the world.

Things like race and sex are very obviously thrust upon people without their consent. People cannot choose what sex they were born as, or what their skin color is; such things are determined by genetics and chromosomes, over which we have no control. Of course, this fact didn't stop discrimination against people for these things in the past (or to this day) - but for many contemporary Americans, this is precisely the reason they try not to be racist or sexist against those of other races or genders. 

Race and sex are also things that are not easily changed. With advancements in biology, changing one's sex from the one assigned at birth is a lot easier than it used to be - but it still comes with a host of expenses that not everyone can afford, and is often difficult to obtain for other reasons, as well (not least because transgendered individuals also face discrimination). Changing one's race is even more difficult, though some people are able to successfully "pass" as someone from a different race.

In recent decades, sexual orientation has been added to this category of "relatively non-changeable identities that are assigned at birth". As more studies suggest that sexual orientation may also be (at least partly) determined by genetics, so too have more and more Americans pushed for equal treatment for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. (I've written about this before - check out this previous post (also from 2015) for my opinions on searching for a "gay gene")

It doesn't seem fair to judge someone based on something they can't help; they didn't choose to be part of a group of people traditionally discriminated against, and would theoretically have chosen to be born into the group of people with privilege, if they had been given the choice. They therefore don't deserve to be blamed or shamed or discriminated against; if anything, they deserve pity and/or additional aid to raise their station to those of the people with privilege. 

But there's a problem with this line of thinking (well, actually a few problems, but I'm only going to focus on one right now). If we agree as a society that we shouldn't judge people for something they can't control, this apparently gives many people the justification to argue that we can judge people for things they can control - the things they choose to do. 

And if we're judging other people's actions... It hardly matters what genes they do or don't have, does it? We can claim we're discriminating against black people not because they are black, but because they "act" black. ("If you're afraid for your children's safety, maybe stop letting them listen to rap music that glorifies violence.") We can justify discriminating against women if we insist we're not doing it because of their inherent biology, but because of their choices. ("If you didn't want to be assaulted, maybe you shouldn't have dressed in such a short skirt.") And we can argue that homophobia is fine - as long as it's gay sex, gay relationships, and gay marriage we're complaining about, and not gay people in and of themselves.

This is precisely what those who are insistent on discriminating against gay people argue, to this day. They will not be deterred by scientific evidence of a gay gene; they will assert that people can still choose which sexual acts they engage in, regardless of genetic inclinations. They will take a gay child and say, "this child might be born gay, but they don't have to act gay," and they will send them to conversion therapy in the hopes of teaching them proper, more socially acceptable behaviors.

(Never mind that many of these people are the same people that argue "boys will be boys." Heterosexual men are given a pass to let their sexual urges overcome their powers of higher reasoning and self-control, because they are in the privileged group. But that's another conversation.)

The thing is, these people are right - it seems contradictory, but we really are born with certain characteristics that our outside our control AND have the ability to make choices and help direct the trajectories of our lives. But what these people forget is this: 1) These choices are only theoretical, and a lot harder to make and maintain in practice, and 2) It's not really much of a "choice" at all, really, if someone is shamed, threatened, coerced, or encouraged into making it - if the "choice" comes from the outside, rather than from within.

Put another way, they suppose that all choices are available to everyone (even though they're not), and that all choices are similar enough to each other to be interchangeable (for someone else, of course - but not for them). They might say: "Just have sex with someone of the opposite gender instead of someone of the same gender. It's not so different. You can do it; you can change." Or: "Just pray to a different god. It's practically the same anyway, just more correct." But ask them to change, and get a completely different response.

A gay person can try to be in a heterosexual relationship, or no relationship; they can try (and many do) to suppress their true desires. But that doesn't mean they want to, and it doesn't mean they make that choice willingly. They feel trapped or coerced into doing things that make them unhappy or that don't feel natural to them - all because certain behaviors have attached shame in our society, while others (those performed by privileged groups) are considered acceptable.

Religion is the same way; to a lesser extent, so is class. Theoretically, we have at least some control over what religion we subscribe to (or whether we subscribe to any religion at all), or how much money we have. We can do things to try to raise our income (such as getting a college degree, or studying a specific field with plentiful high-paying jobs, or working longer hours, or prioritizing work over family, or choosing not to have children), and we can convert to another religion, or step away from religion altogether. But that doesn't mean that those choices are equally available to everyone, or that they are easy to make.

Many people forget how fickle choices can be. They ask: Why can't poor people just choose to move up in the world, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps? Why can't homosexual individuals just choose to suppress those desires and forge heterosexual relationships, or opt for celibacy? Why can't non-Christians just convert to Christianity? If it would make their lives easier to be a part of the privileged group, why don't they choose to do so?

They neglect to see the bigger picture. Especially where social class is concerned, there are a lot of things that can get in the way and prevent choice. Which fields have plentiful high-paying jobs might change between when you enter a program and when you finish it. Some people don't have the money to pay for college, or the time to devote to studying a new line of work. Career and education opportunities, not to mention birth control, are not equally accessible to everyone. It might seem like a choice to those who have all these choices available to them - but to others, there's only ever one option they can see, one path they can take.

Because this is supposed to be a post about religion, let me focus on just that from here on out.

We theoretically have the ability to choose whatever beliefs we want. We can buy in to the prepackaged belief systems of any number of major religions, or even pick and choose, building our own personal beliefs. But our willingness and ease in doing so depends on how we were raised, what different religious/spiritual options (or non-options) we've been exposed to, how open we (and often, our families) are to the idea of changing something as crucial to our self-definition as what we believe in, and the resources we have available to us.

Still. Even if religion was 100% our own personal choice, with no outside influence from our families and cultural traditions - why does that make it suddenly acceptable to discriminate against others based on this choice? We make choices and form preferences every day, on a great multitude of things, and don't pass moral judgment on people based on other decisions. Some people like the color blue, or watching sci-fi movies, or eating tacos; others hate blue, sci-fi movies, and tacos - but we're all willing to recognize that both of those groups of people are people of equal value, who deserve equal treatment and respect.

Maybe it has to do with how we define ourselves. Most of us don't prioritize a love of Mexican food as a defining characteristic about ourselves - but we might say "Christian" or "Hindu" or "Atheist" as a top-five descriptor of our core persona. (Perhaps this would also explain why people get so up-in-arms about sexual orientation. Though "gay" or "straight" might not necessarily be part of someone's go-to self-description, relationships with others very well could be. We define ourselves as "husband"; "wife"; "mother"; "father"; "brother"; "sister"; etc. - meaning that who we choose to love and nurture relationships with is also part of our core being.)

This can't be the only reason, however - because another very common way to define who we are as a person is what we do for a living. And while we might form opinions about someone's interests, priorities, or wealth/social class once we learn their occupation or field of study, we don't tend to dehumanize them or cast moral judgment on their life choices simply for having a different job than we do. It would be beyond arrogance to assume that just because you love being a doctor, and are good at being a doctor, and earn a good living as a doctor, that everybody else should be a doctor, too - and yet, that is precisely what many religious people do about religion.

We make choices all the time, and often give great thought into them, especially if they're Big Choices, like where to live, who to marry, what profession to pursue, what college to attend, or whether or not to start a family. We might even form pro-con lists, weighing the consequences to determine which is the best choice. But we do this for ourselves - not for other people. We're looking for what the best choice is for OUR lives - based on our goals, what we hope our lives will turn out to be, our preferences, and our gut reactions. We don't presume that just because a choice is the objectively right choice for us, it must also be the right choice for everyone else.

And here's where it comes full circle and taps back into theory number one. Many people separate out religion as not only a choice but a choice where there is only one "right choice" FOR EVERYONE - because that is precisely what their religion demands. Christians have to judge non-Christians as misguided, ignorant, unfortunate, pitiable, stubborn, and/or morally bankrupt - because if they didn't, what would that mean for their own beliefs? If it's okay for Stranger A to not believe in Jesus and still be a good person - wouldn't it also have to be okay for Christians to change their mind and no longer believe? If all religions (or following no religion at all) are equally valid life choices, then the pillars of Christianity would collapse. Christians are counting on the fact that there is only One Truth, and they (and only they) believe in it; they can't ignore this aspect of their religion, because it is at the core of what their religion is.

And then, consider that Christianity is not the only religion that thinks it is the rightest, truest religion. Furthermore, no one can definitively prove one way or another which religion is the rightest and truest. That's kind of the point of religion. You believe in it on faith. It can't be physically proven here on earth, but some feel it, and know in their hearts that it must be. So now we have competing religions, each one arguing that they are right and all others are wrong, and they are justified in discriminating against those who don't believe what they believe. This is how wars break out.

You can insist that it comes from "a place of love" all you want, but it will always come across as arrogant to the people you are talking to. You are still asserting that something is undeniably true which no one can actually prove, and then getting angry, personally offended, frustrated, or harshly judgmental when you come across someone who lives a different life than you and doesn't see things the same way you do.

It is human nature to see everything through our own lens of experience. What else can we do? We know what we know; we know what we've lived. But there is a difference to not understanding someone else's point of view and refusing to listen, a difference between not understanding someone else's point of view and assuming their point of view has no value, simply because it is outside the realm of your understanding.

For these and so many other reasons, it doesn't make sense to shame people for their choices. (Unless, of course, their choices are hurting someone else - murder, for example, is not an appropriate choice no matter who you are.) As long as someone's pursuit of happiness does not infringe on someone else's, one sort of behavior should not be condemned while another is praised. "Different strokes for different folks," right? We all have different preferences; there should be nothing wrong with following them.

So getting back to that controversial statement I made. "Christianity is not inherently better or more true than any other religion, and does not deserve preferential treatment or privilege - in America, or anywhere else."

Perhaps you disagree with the first half of that sentence and insist that Christianity is better and more true than any other religion. It's your prerogative to believe that, just as it's mine not to. But hopefully the second half of my claim doesn't sound quite as controversial. We should not afford privileges to any group nor shame or discriminate against people, on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, religion, class, or ability. Period.

It doesn't matter whether someone was born into a Christian household and raised Christian, or whether they were not brought up as Christian but converted later in life, or whether they were born into a Christian family but then stepped away from their family's religion, or whether they are not Christian, have never been Christian, have no interest in Christianity, and would never choose to subscribe to that religion - regardless of their religion, or even a choice to be completely non-religious, everyone should be treated equally. We are all human, and as such, all deserve respect.

Let me repeat myself. It doesn't matter if someone belongs to or identifies with a group by choice or by birth. We are all human, and as such, all deserve respect.