The Chalk Crusades

As promised, here are my expanded and updated remarks on the "war of the words" between the atheists and believers at my college:

Every Monday at around 1:20 PM, I tell a group of prospective students and their families that religion at this college "is what you make of it." Part of my takeaway point is that whether you are a die-hard catholic or a steadfast atheist, Jewish from birth or a recently converted Muslim, or whatever your faith may or may not be, you will never feel pressured to change who you are or feel attacked because of what you do or do not believe. I still feel that such is the case here, but based on some of the remarks I've seen lately chalked around campus, I worry that perhaps it isn't going to be that way for much longer.

Before I continue, I think I ought to qualify my own religious background. I come from a family that is half Catholic, and half Protestant. The protestant side includes Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, a little bit of Judaism by marriage (which isn't a sect of Christianity, but worth mentioning), and my own branch, The United Church of Christ, which is an open and affirming church. This means that they accept everyone, including gays and lesbians (which has caused some controversy) and agnostics and atheists. Basically, so long as you don't mock the pastor as she gives her sermon, you're welcome in my church. I went to church on and off growing up, and spent most of high school convinced I was either atheist or about to convert to Buddhism or Taoism. I still like the values of the Eastern Religions, but I'd consider myself Christian, although I don't attend church regularly. In sum, my background fits well with the religion is what you make of it theory.

To be fair, the atheists, or "Society of Secular Students" as I believe they call themselves, did fire the first shot. On September 30, to celebrate National Blasphemy Day (which I didn't realize was a thing), they wrote a number of chalk messages around campus. Some of these questions were good, and could be related to topical issues like the recent attacks on American Embassies (though evidence is now emerging that those attacks were not in retaliation for the film, "The Innocence of Muslims", but instead a coordinated attack on the anniversary of 9/11). For example, "Is blasphemy free speech?" is a valid question that certainly deserves some discussion. However, some of the other questions, while hopefully well-intentioned, struck me as more trivial than anything else, and I'm not sure what their goal was. For example, "Believe in God? What if you're WRONG?" or "What if your God DOESN'T exist?". I know some students found these questions offensive or disrespectful, but I took one look at them and thought "So what?". I'm not wagering my life savings on God's existence in Vegas, and I don't think anyone's argued that you'll spend an eternity in Hell if you believe in God and it turns out you're wrong. Generally, the opposite is true.

The more trivial of these questions seemed more like an unintentional caricature of the very thing they were questioning. I grew up in Northeast Ohio, and whenever I drive to Cincinnati I have to pass through the "Bible Belt" of Ohio, where I see billboards that say things like "Where will YOU go when you die?" and "Hell is REAL" (these billboards often have the Ten Commandments posted on the opposite side to hammer the point home). The tone of the atheist messages seems awfully close to the especially religious messages, and with that point combined with the triviality of some of the questions, I find the messages hard to take seriously. In the end, I'm left wondering what they expected to accomplish.

However, that doesn't mean I take the religious messages seriously either. Again, I support the idea that you can believe in any faith or no faith at all, so both sides have the right to believe whatever they want (or nothing at all) so long as they don't try to convert me. Someone decided to write a response in chalk outside of the school library a couple of days after National Blasphemy Day. The first message reads, "I believe in God." Alright, you'll have no argument or criticism from me here. The messages go on to say that the writer believes in God because of "the complexity of the human body," the fact that we happen to exist on one of the few habitable bodies in the universe, "language," and because animals know, among other things, when to hibernate. The string of messages concludes as you walk along, not with "Burmashave," but rather with something to the effect of "If REASON isn't enough for you, then you obviously don't know the meaning of FAITH." I do not recall the exact words, but the message, and the capitalized "REASON" and "FAITH" were definitely the same.

I appreciate the sentiment, and the message the writer was trying to send, but they picked the wrong arguments. My argument that religion isn't a high-stakes game isn't necessarily the best one, but I could respond to the argument that one can believe in God because of all of the aforementioned items simply by cracking open a biology textbook, perhaps using my Animal Behavior textbook to explain language and hibernation. I won't argue that religion is wrong, but I will argue that the "REASON" offered isn't a very good way to argue in favor of religion. Moreover, the final statement seemed accusatory and insulting in a way that seemed to contradict the welcoming nature of most if not all of the churches and faithful in the area.

I have always argued that much of Christianity's teachings, as well of the other major religions, are not meant as a way to explain science (not in modern days, at least) but rather to provide a set of principles for people to live by. Last semester, I took a course titled "Basic Christian Beliefs" and one of the points raised was that Jesus dying on the cross for mankind's sins is not meant to imply that the "eternal life" this sacrifice grants is immortality or resurrection, but rather that eternal life begins now, and that life should be lived to the fullest. Whether or not God exists, if it's giving Christians a reason to live a fulfilling live, ideally with personal happiness and good will towards others, I won't try to sway them from that path. On the other hand, I will likely reject an argument that God created the world in six days or that we can attribute human language to a divine power in favor of the scientific theory. In other words, there are many reasons to support religion (using Christianity as my example), and I think a discussion about all the good religion brings contrasted with some of the evil it has caused too would be a worthy one. Suggesting that the atheists are flat out wrong by using the intelligent design argument is not taking the "higher road", will likely only add to the atheists' argument, and doesn't allow me to take the author of the pro-religion statements very seriously either.

I would like to add that I have heard that both sides of this debate (if that is what you would call it) have been sponsored by the Student Government Association (SGA). I'm not sure what to make of this, but I would ask the SGA "what are you doing?" On one hand, by supporting both sides, they aren't taking a side. On the other hand, the SGA used to favor more open discussion, or so I thought.

I don't think any of the parties had cruel intentions in this matter, but while my own feelings are unfazed I know there are students who have been upset by the recent events. Maybe we don't need a "Talk Back" (as we seem to have for every single time a controversial event happens around here), but in the future, let's all agree to find a better way of having this debate than letting the chalk fly. Maybe once the chalk washes away (the recent rain has seen to that) the hurt feelings can heal, and we can go back to the religion is what you make of it system that I say this college practices.

TL;DR: You're not going to change someone's belief with a chalk message; all you'll do is annoy them. All they've convinced me of is that neither side should be taken seriously.