Trash-talking

This week’s blog post is in response to a post by Paul Louis Metzger and John W. Morehead who wrote a response addressed to both the religious and the irreligious following a controversial “atheist invocation” at a Lake Worth, Florida City Commission meeting. Their post can be found here. The irreligious invocation offered at that meeting was considered by many to be deliberately mocking of many religious systems and advocated for their being discarded from the public square. Metzger and Morehead’s response calls instead for civil dialogue, free from mocking on either side that allows us to work together for the common good. Working for the “common good” seems like a good idea, but how does one determine what is good? Why should one side be able to dictate the ground rules so that the other side has to check their convictions at the door? Sounds like intellectual gun control by a nervous sheriff to me.

The particular objection, in this case, is the practice of opening public meetings with a prayer of invocation. However, that seems to reveal an ignorance of their purpose and the common good that is served for religious and irreligious alike. Invocations are essentially an act of humility, a request for help that if not a direct request of elected officials is the desire of the people served and is offered up for the common good. 

It would seem to be a more sincere “invocation” by an atheist if they were simply to offer a moment of silence (since they don’t believe there is anyone to which we should pray) enabling participants to reflect on values to be applied during the meeting to follow, or perhaps to recite a list of commonly held community virtues and expectations that should guide officials in their leadership duties. Denigrating another person’s religion or irreligion should not be part of any invocation. In fact, it mocks it. Atheistic mocking of people of faith shows how intolerant the mockers can be. Yet it can also be a good reminder to Christians and other religionists to not pray or rant disparagingly against other groups. In my opinion, an invocation should not be a time to do evangelism or “devangelism” as the case may be, but to ask that the common good might be sought through the meeting to follow.

In the Florida case in question, many have objected to the man’s mocking tone in his mention of the various religions and have cautioned against such strident confrontation. I agree with Metzger and Morehead that such inflammatory methods do not lead to an increase in civil discourse or a greater sense of the “common good.” I personally don’t like our culture of trash-talking our opponents be it in sports, politics, science, or in sermons. To be honest, too many religious leaders spend too much time mocking other religious groups in their communications with their own adherents. There are Imams demonizing Christians and Jews in their messages, Christian pastors mocking Mormons, Muslims, Pagans, and yes even Atheists (especially during April) from the pulpit, while Mormons mock Evangelicals' “salvation by grace”, etc. Should it surprise us when an Atheist mocks us all as well? Nope. But the whole level of rhetoric does sadden me.

While I agree that insulting someone is not civil or kind and will not be a part of my own engagement methodology, in an effort at full disclosure, I would like to point out that the Bible does contain examples of trash-talking, though it certainly is not presented as a prescriptive.

Case #1 Sacrificial Showdown of Century featuring Elijah vs. the 450 prophets of Baal and the 400 prophets of Asherah in the Mt. Carmel amphitheater.  In this situation, Elijah outnumbered 950 to one did in fact boldly “mock” the tiring prophets of Baal, but not with an intent to discourage them but to spur them on to give their best efforts in dancing, shouting, and cutting.

And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention. (1 Kings 18:27-29, ESV)

As a result, he got them to give a few more hours of effort before they gave up. Then he even handicapped himself by soaking his sacrifices and wood in water. He wanted to make sure that the people knew God was making a point.

There are a number of other examples such as Judges 16, where Delilah mocked Samson, but that didn’t turn out well for the Philistines in the end. Another is 2 Kings 18-19 where the Rabshakeh sent by Sennacherib king of Assyria mocked God before King Hezekiah and the people and God destroyed their army of 185,000 in a single night. Not the results they had desired. Even the people of Israel, who decided that their own wisdom was better than that of the Lord, became mockers and sealed their own fate.
 

The Lord, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place. But they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord rose against his people, until there was no remedy. (2 Chronicles 36:15-16)

I don’t want to be a mocker of what is true, nor do I desire to deride what is false, even if some believe it to be an effective technique to “get into the head” of their opponent. I would much rather speak encouragement to them to bring their best effort, their most rigorous argument, their most impassioned plea to the debate and have the courage and consideration to expect the same from me; having done that, to listen fully to each other, yearning to understand if not to agree. Now that would be worth the price of admission.

“…let us, above all, love one another, not to obtain mythical rewards for ourselves now, hereafter, or based on superstitious threats of eternal damnation, but rather, embrace secular-based principles of morality – and do good for goodness’ sake.” (Quotation taken from The Palm Beach Post article by Chris Persaud).

This quote causes me to wonder how we might arrive at secular-based principles of morality. This sounds like an intriguing line of inquiry. Is that a certain morality that encourages behavior that leads to a survival of the fittest in a Social Darwinist redux, or a “live and let live” laissez-faire bowl of platitude porridge for the philosophically lobotomized? Who is left to engage others through their convictions in order to determine what secular morality might be? What then is the “good” that we are supposed to do, how can we know it is, in fact, good, and while we are at it how can we do it for “goodness’ sake” since goodness is not a person to have a sake?

In conclusion, I would say that it is hard to bite your tongue when someone insults the person you love the most. It is not something that produces the most rational response, but rather an understandably emotional one. Some religions may have adherents who respond violently to perceived mocking as we have seen this week in France, others may protest and some will just complain. Irreligionists are no different. Reading through the comments on the original blog post demonstrates how difficult it is to practice diplomacy at such times, and yet how important it is for us to learn how to do so.

It is for the common good that we treat each other with common courtesy. I would think that should be the starting point, not the finish line.