Roger Lindsay — Discussing religion isn’t all pie in the sky

By Roger Lindsay

A tricky aspect of criticizing religion is the difference between challenging institutions vs. conversing with individuals. I call it the Grandmother Problem: Could I honestly tell my sweet grandmother what had driven me from religion without hurting her feelings? Could I explain myself without seeming to condemn her, as well?

I never resolved that specific dilemma, but perhaps you, too, have a Grandmother Problem (or a Roommate Problem, a Neighbor Problem, etc.). As much as we may relish imagined heroic confrontations with villainous bullies, not every believer wears a black hat, and, more to the point, few have that much power.

Think of a religious institution whose policies and activities you oppose. Now, consider your believing neighbor or co-worker. How do the two relate? Some individuals, however emotionally or otherwise invested, may be uncomfortable with church/corporate policy themselves and wish it were different. How much blame should be theirs, and are we blaming actual supporters or actual victims?

Large corporations usually have giving programs or charitable foundations precisely to deflect negative assessments of their behavior, political lobbying and tax avoidance. Critique the corporation and one is shown crowds of well-intentioned if perhaps uninformed volunteers wearing the corporate logo. What big oil company doesn’t fund some small environmental project like planting trees during carefully managed photo-ops? This shouldn’t divert our attention for long or keep us from exposing these companies’ other actions. But the people planting the trees could be very nice.

Much like Big Oil, Big Religion does this kind of corporate PR very well, appearing to mitigate damage caused by its own larger agenda — social services in poor countries it has helped subjugate, orphanages in Ireland or Texas, and so on. Even the Taliban provides community assistance of a sort in Afghanistan.

I predict a coming boom in the United States for charities serving women forced to carry their pregnancies to term. Guess who will take credit — for the charity, not the force?

But, what of the believers wishing for change mentioned above? A well-meaning layperson seems rather like a passenger sitting in the last row of coach on a jumbo jet. In this religious business — let’s call it Pie in the Sky Airlines — does the CEO consider passengers’ views on corporate policy? Is the board of directors interested in passenger input on the airline’s lobbying efforts and finances? Would the pilots of the plane listen to this passenger’s opinion about how the plane is being flown or where it should land? Even the flight attendants probably don’t really care what this layperson in coach thinks so long as they obey the rules. So, how guilty is the person in Seat 36F? (I don’t mean to imply that all such airline passengers are wholly innocent — though some of them are probably simply using tickets handed down from their parents.)

Now, suppose the lay member is female. Who’s listening to her? She’s not even sitting in the last row of coach, is she? No, she’s basically luggage. Many of the “airlines” I’m discussing have made it quite clear that women’s primary value is their carrying capacity, have they not?

Maybe I could have found the words to criticize Pie in the Sky Airlines without making my grandmother feel accused, sitting as she was way at the back, if she’d been permitted a seat at all.

I expect many of you reading this have come up with better ways to approach your friends and neighbors. It’s a discussion I’d like to see continue.

FFRF Member Roger Lindsay is a retired public librarian and lives in Minneapolis with his wife.