I am a passionate and active person who is never content to accept the saying “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I have recently made the decision to reject my Jewish education and pronounce myself atheist. I live a very counter-culture lifestyle that involves wearing clothing that I have either fabricated myself or purchased from a thrift store and altered, listening to experimental music, and refusing to engage in absurd social traditions. In reflection upon the rationals for all of these choices, I have realized that they share a common motive: to assert my social freedom. The following is my attempt to emulate the work of Friedan and King by diagnosing the social enslavement of our time. I then go a step further and explain how I attempt to free myself and others of this enslavement. I may be probing for problems that don’t exist, but I’d much rather make people think by pointing out possibly nonexistent enslavement than than allow potentially real issues to go unnoticed. It’s an activist thing.

Let’s first examine a potential infringement upon peoples’ freedom of thought: Christianity. Christian religious ideology has become so ingrained in American society that many people are forced to be Christian. In many communities in the mid-western US, one is not free to “come out” as an atheist for fear of social rejection, familial rejection, and loss of employment. Each of the 43 presidents of the United States, with the exception of John F. Kennedy (a Roman Catholic), was raised in a family with affiliations with Protestant Christianity. This same trend is seen in Congress and virtually all other political offices: being religious is necessary to get the vote. It is nearly impossible to be elected if one holds an alternative religious view because enough Americans feel so strongly about their religious convictions that they refuse to be lead by someone who does not share them. Just as the “closet” atheists of the central US are forced to conform to religious customs, politicians need to at least display a façade of religious affiliation, as do most corporations who’s clientèle include that majority of Americans who are religious. This infectious nature of Christianity is further augmented by the missionary mentality that is a large part of many sects. True, it’s one thing to force someone to have religious convictions and another thing entirely to pressure someone into pretending to be religious. However, giving the appearance of being religious perpetuates the cycle of agreeing to religious tradition and ideology that may eventually convince oneself, convince others, or, more importantly, convince one’s children to accept religious dogma. I should be clear here that I recognize that there are many different sects of Christianity with varying beliefs and customs. As such, the religious communities that I am referring to are the more conservative, extremist ones that, although uncommon in sunny So’ Cal, are surprisingly common in the Midwest and appear to be on the rise with the recent flux of conservativism in the United States.

Many of these religious communities indoctrinate children who are too young to develop their own personal beliefs, enslaving their thoughts from infancy. They are scared into submission with threats of eternal suffering in hell or bribed into conformation with the promise of acceptance by youth groups, other members of the church community, and Jesus.
But what’s so damaging about religious thinking? Christian doctrine includes condemnation of certain thoughts because of their “impure,” “sinful,” or “unfaithful” nature. This has created a religious culture of refusing to even be around evolutionist propaganda or homosexuals, much less keep an open mind about them, for fear of being contaminated with their sin. In this way, religious communities are often unable to freely consider both sides of an argument. Thus not only are people limited in their freedom of thought by being forced into religious thinking in the first place, but this religious thinking is itself often an infringement upon their freedom of thought.

I want to be entirely clear that I do not believe that being religious is always damaging to one’s freedom of thought. However, the problem lies in the way that religious dogma are imposed either upon children who are too young to develop their own opinions and who are not given both sides of the argument or upon adults who are forced to be religious in order to be accepted by society or because they, again, are simply not familiar with both sides of the argument. These people are unfairly limited in their freedom of thought.

I now refuse to be identified as Jewish. Though I will always be a proud, cultural Jew, I am not a religious Jew, and I believe that it is important to voice that. This is my attempt to remedy the ailment of people being forced into faith for fear of social rejection. It’s a small contribution to the construction of a social atmosphere that is more accepting of atheists. I also take any chance I get to engage in dialog about religious ideas, even with strangers. In doing so, I hope to expose them to arguments for evolution (often citing the work of Richard Dawkins) or gay rights that their church communities may neglect to share with them, allowing them to take a more educated stance that considers both sides of the argument. I also listen to their religious arguments and ask them for suggestions for religious propaganda to read. Then I read it. I also often quote bible passages or religious propaganda. This is to assert that I am truly listening to and interested in their ideas, which I hope will inspire the same treatment of mine, which may remedy the issue of religious thinkers refusing to examine “sinful” thoughts. Finally, I do my best to advocate parent-child and student-teacher relationships that emphasize how to think and not what to think and encourage peaceful disagreement of opinions. I believe that this will help children develop their own beliefs and not be swayed to simply accept those of their parents or communities, securing their freedom of thought.

Let’s next examine a potential infringement on peoples’ freedom of individuality or freedom of self, social norms. In a similar way to people being forced to adopt religious ideologies in some communities, people are expected to cast their characters in the mold of a social group. The norms of the social “clique” system force people into an all-or-nothing alliance with an individual social group. Members of the black community may feel that it is necessary for them to play basketball and learn how to break dance or otherwise “act black” in order to be accepted. This is of course not to say that any black person who plays basketball is a victim of his social expectations, but the simple commonality of the culture of black basketball players is enough to ensure that there are plenty of black people that are being unwillingly forced into it. Women are pressured from infancy to “act girly” by wearing certain clothes, wearing makeup, and eventually “flirting” with boys. This is in large part the cause of the eating disorders that plague teenage girls who feel that they are failing to stay within the guidelines of how a girl should be. Even social groups with voluntary entrance have overly binding codes of conduct: Hipsters never watch MTV, goths never do ballet, and jocks never, under any circumstances, watch chick-flicks, all for fear of being rejected by their respective social groups. Another interesting example of this societal forcing of people into molds lies in the gay community, just like any other community, is plagued by its stereotypes, though perhaps even more so because of its rapidly developing nature.

As leading a homosexual life has become more socially acceptable due to increased commonality and media attention, some extreme stereotypes have been developed. The arm-flailing vision of homosexuality that we are shown by Jack of Will and Grace or the Fab Five of Queer Eye seems to have become the popular image of what it is to be gay. Though this view is entertaining, I worry that members of the gay male community may feel that emulating this persona is their only way of being confident in their homosexuality or of being accepted by the gay community. I of course do not mean to suggest that all gay men who act this way are just copying what they see on TV, I am, again, simply pointing out that the commonality of this stereotype gives it the potential to be imposed upon others. One response to this stereotype has been to assert a new “butch” persona to counteract the common “femme” one. This same dynamic of “butch” vs “femme” exists in the lesbian community. This creates a pressure to pick a side and ignores the fact that being romantically attracted to the same sex does not need to have any effect on one’s comportment. Another problem is the common sexual orientation scale that is limited to gay and straight, with little recognition of intermediate stances. Only recently has the word “queer” been re-appropriated to be a politically-correct, all-encompassing term for not-entirely-straight sexual orientations (with some people even arguing that nobody is “completely” straight). The “butch” vs “femme” mentality and the limited sexual orientation scale both contribute to a culture that attempts to force gays into a mold, often forgetting that the only requirement to be gay is to be romantically attracted to the same sex.

I’m a straight male that wears tight t-shirts and jeans. I am comfortable with socializing with homosexuals and commenting on the appearance of other guys. One reason for doing this is to give the homosexual lifestyle a well-deserved chance so that I can be sure that I am not simply ignoring an undiscovered gay side of myself. But this also serves to blur the line between gay and straight males and create a social atmosphere where a straight males don’t feel that they have to steer away from “gay” personality traits and gay (or “queer”) males don’t feel that they have to deny their “straight” personality traits.

I also make my own clothing. This is my attempt to create my persona from scratch. By making my own clothes or altering clothes that I buy from thrift stores, I am taking ownership of this aspect of my persona; forming it myself instead of casting myself into a pre-existing mold. Another way that some people go about doing this is using social networking tools such as myspace, facebook, or second life, where one can literally craft one’s own persona from scratch without the limitations of one’s uncontrollable traits (such as gender and skin color) and without the pressure to “fit in” with their immediate surroundings, as there is a lively community for every type of person on the internet.

Maybe I’m just another Green Day-loving counter-culture angsty teenager who lashes out against society and breaks the rules just to be “cool”. But this much is for certain: People who follow the rules rarely make history. I take my freedom very seriously, and I am not content to be “free enough.” I hope to live a life of example that will persuade people to question things. I hope people will be persuaded to question the beliefs that they were brought up with by seeking to understand the other half of the argument instead of rejecting it. I hope people will be persuaded to disappoint society by living outside their social stereotypes and creating their own mold to cast their character. Most importantly, I hope people will be inspired to “fix it,” even if it “ain’t broke.”

interest sparked by this article

Especially interesting to me is the second half of the virus of faith.

Dawkins makes some sweeping generalizations and shows a disgusting lack of compassion, but he also has some very valid points.

The root of all evil is not religion. many peaceful people are religious, and many violent people are non-religious. Faith, however, presents more of a dilemma. The nazis were faithful to hitler, and terrorists are faithful to their causes. However, gandhi was faithful to his causes and his people and his ideals. Perhaps then the question is not faith exactly, but blind faith.

Some religious people are faithful because of a continuing critical thought process that considers other belief systems and allows critical questioning of their own beliefs, which leads them to the personal conclusion that their faith is right for them. This is good.

However, some religious people are faithful because they were “raised that way”, because their parents “told them so”, because they live in an isolated society where contact with other belief systems is cut off, or even because they are threatened from an early age with severe punishments in this life or the afterlife. This “forced faith” is unhealthy, and it’s probably from this kind of faith that terrorism and nazism gain support.

The question of the fairness of indoctrinating a child with religious beliefs is a difficult one. Parents have a right, and perhaps even a responsibility to educate their children about their heritage. Some important restrictions, however, must be applied. The enforcement of education by refusing access to other ideas and information is obviously unhealthy to a young mind because it destroys the ability to think critically and results in “forced faith”. The use of hell as a threat, as discussed in the “The Virus of Faith” can be considered psychological abuse, and furthermore the use of heaven as a bribe is questionable as well. A personal belief in heaven and/or hell is not necessarily unhealthy, but attempting to scare a child into adopting a belief system undoubtedly is, especially if the child is told that her very conception and birth was a sin. This is not to say that all churches do this, this is to advocate caution against it. The playing field is already unleveled because religious education facilities are free to criticize science although public educational facilities are prohibited from criticizing religion.

Some may argue that it is important to teach a child religious doctrine in order to teach them morality, and some people may even insist that without a fear of supernatural repercussions, one has no motivation to live a just life. However, the concepts of compassion and morality can be taught outside of religious doctrine, and some scientists, for example the one in the film, believe that morality and the idea of “do unto others as you would want others to do unto you” is a natural “instinct” of humans, developed and passed down guided by Darwinian principles to allow humans to function well in groups.

A religious community, like any other community, can be very enriching and help to spread knowledge, promote discussion, and bring people together to give them a sense of belonging and home. However, imagine the observation made in Supersize Me, that McDonald’s Play Places help associate a warm fuzzy feeling with McDonald’s so that adults will have an urge for a burger when they see the golden arches. Could a religious community hold youth activities for the purpose of subconsciously associating “family” with their community or faith, thus securing the continued patronage of it’s youth and their future generations?

One may argue that the “problem” that I am getting at is extremist religion. However, I would rebut that even moderate religious faith can be damaging on an individual level if it is “forced faith”. If a moderately religious person is faithful because they feel that they have no other options because of peer pressure from their community or family, or even if they are unaware of any other options outside of their faith because of the isolation of their community, then that person’s thoughts or actions may be restricted by their faith. She may not be able to marry outside of her faith, attend school outside of her faith, or support any kind of cause that her religious community shuns. She could become trapped within her religious community and religious belief system until she was (ironically) “saved”. This situation has been compared to homosexuality, in the sense that some people who are personally non-believers are forced by their community to remain “in the closet”.

So if the “problem” is “forced faith”, what is the solution? An early encouragement of critical thinking is essential for children, and, along with a healthy dose of exposure to outside cultures and belief systems will allow a person to develop their own personal belief system as opposed to simply inheriting one from their parents or community. Also, a healthy religious community is one that is compassionate toward religious and non-religious people, even if the non-religious ones are former community members. A religious community must be supportive of its members’ decision to leave, just as a nonreligious community must be supportive of converts away from faith, and converts into faith. Communities must assert that atheism is an option, just as communities must assert that homosexuality is an option. Freedom is a key word here. Freedom of action and freedom of thought. If a person is religious by “voluntary faith”, then they are free. If a person is non-religious by voluntary non-faith, then they are free. Perhaps then the root of all evil is enslavement.