For most of my teenage and young adult life I have recoiled from religion as if it were a hot poker being shoved at my eye...
...This was especially the case when politicians from the religious right spewed their hateful venom condemning gays, pro-choicers, liberals, Muslims, non-believers, and anyone else that didn't fit into their narrow construction of what it meant to be "moral" or "Christian." However, my scorn was not limited to religious wingnuts, but was unleashed on anyone of any religious bent. So why is it that Obama, a man of undeniable faith, who has spoken about his beliefs on many occasions, doesn't elicit the same response? Why is it that my slightly disaffected Southern Baptist roommate is downright terrified of Obama's faith, whereas I, a lifelong, militant non-believer, actually accept it as a net positive for the candidate?
To answer this question, I had to delve into my own beliefs (or lack thereof if you want to get technical) and their origins, which I had never really done.
Needless to say, I didn't really uncover why I'm agnostic. I guess I just haven't made the "leap," as Kierkegaard described it. However, I did uncover from where my vehement distaste for all things religious came. It all began when I learned about Pascal's Wager in high school.
For those that don't know, Pascal's Wager essentially says:
If reason is truly corrupt and cannot be relied upon to decide the matter of God's existence, we are left with a coin toss. In Pascal's assessment, placing a wager is unavoidable, and anyone who is on the fence like he is, incapable of trusting any evidence either for or against God's existence, must at least face the prospect that infinite happiness is at risk. The "infinite" expected value of believing is always greater than the expected value of not believing.
In other words, if there is no God, then it doesn't really matter whether you believe in Him or not. If there is a God, however, you have everything to gain by believing (Heaven), and everything to lose by not believing (Hell). Now, Pascal was more nuanced than this sounds, and only uses this construct to illustrate how and why one can embark on the path to belief. Pascal's Wager is a means to true faith, not an end in itself.
However, in my dealings with most religious people, especially those that try to convert me and/or invite me to Bible studies, they don't seem to have advanced far on the path to belief; they've merely flipped the coin.
"Accepting Jesus is the only way to save your soul. Don't you want to save your soul and spend eternity in the Kingdom of Heaven?"
Of course, but what soul would I have left after making a "leap of faith" based solely on self-interest? These people and this argument always struck me as very cynical and disheartening. If even religion is predicated on self-preservation, of this life or the next, human existence is truly a sad and lonely affair.
I would rather be honest in my non-belief, than disingenuous in my belief. And if there is a God, I have to believe He would respect and understand the former over the latter (Yes, I know, this probably contradicts my agnosticism, but go with it). An omnipotent, omniscient being like God HAS to know how difficult it is for creatures as imperfect and limited as us to make that leap of faith to belief in His existence. Belief is difficult, and it should be. Anyone who accepts their faith without question is doing themselves a disservice and cheapens the very word.
It is with this newfound understanding of my own (non-)religious views that I finally understood why Barack Obama's faith doesn't scare me. Because he said exactly what I felt in my core here:
Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.
You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.
SNIP
It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear.
I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.
In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.
And more importantly, he said it honestly and fairly. He spoke to the prejudices I've faced, but also to the prejudices I've held against others. He conveys a deep understanding of what so many religious people forget, that the spearation of church and state is a two-way street, and they don't want my government meddling in their churches any more than I want their churches meddling in my government. He understands why progressives and liberals must and should stop hamstringing themselves in the religious forum, and likewise why conservatives must reel back the rampant involvement that the religious right has enjoyed for decades, and why both sides need to mend the divisions caused by both.
Obama notes in the above speech how in recent elections the single greatest determinant of party affiliation has been church attendance. Well, if he can export this message to those religious people on the right who have been disaffected by the use and abuse of their support by the Republicans, Obama could truly broaden the Democratic base and lead the way in finding common ground between people of all faiths. After all, he's converted this non-believer.
VIDEO:
Obama's Call to Renewal Speech
I love this video because Obama starts off slow and kind of stilted, but as the audience gets more into it, he gets more animated and sounds more and more like a preacher. It's fascinating stuff.