Have you ever noticed, that having a belief is, in general, far more useful than not having a belief ? Having a belief endows you with one inalienable right:
The right to be offended.
Whether it is religious ardour or ethnic pride, or staunch vegetarianism, environmentalism, feminism or patriotism, they are all characterized by a singularly unfair characteristic – they cloak their adherents with a special immunity – the garb of a ‘morally superior’ position.
This automatically confers on them, a little discussed, but infinitely important right – the right to be offended.
If you, like me, have been a non believer in most beliefs and a non adherent of most ideologies, you would have been assailed by countless admonitions from passionate ‘believers’ and if you, like me, have been a tolerant, let-me-mind-my-own-business-and-i’ll-gladly-let-you-mind-yours ish person, you would have often consented to do things you did not believe in, just because they mattered so much to people who mattered so much to you, just so that you did not hurt their sentiments.
But what happened to YOUR sentiments, in that case; were YOUR sentiments not hurt ? Now, if you, like me, are a person of rather dubious emotional depths, you would merely scratch your head and say, “Um, no, not really…didn't think about that.”
Somehow, the guiding principle here appears to be: the more tolerant thou art, the more thou shalt tolerate.
Now consider this – can you easily recall an instance of an irreligious person loudly proclaiming, that her / his sentiments were wounded on seeing someone prostrate themselves before the idol of a particular god ?
Or do you remember the last time that a speech seething with patriotic fervor offended the sensibilities of someone who didn't particularly think that their country was any better than another ?
Why do occurrences like these seem inherently improbable ? Do irreligious persons have no sentiments ? Is their non belief not as sacred to them as belief is to the believer ?
We are quite accustomed to respecting a particular ‘standpoint’ of others; when will we learn to respect the act of not having that particular standpoint ?
Having a belief (any belief) is invariably seen in a far more favourable light than not having a belief. This general tendency aggrandizes those who readily espouse beliefs and views and ideologies and severely penalizes those who doubt, those who hesitate to jump to conclusions, those who are painstakingly skeptical…and of course, the most unfortunate victims – those who are irreverently humorous.
The need for a charter of rights for ‘those without belief’ has never been more salient. It’s time we had interest groups, such as the ‘Fraternity of Fun pokers’ or the ‘Society for Protection of Bitchy, Befuddled Bloggers’…or as a reference from a tattered, time worn Enid Blyton book suggests: the ‘Five Fine Doubters’.
