To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
It’s astonishing, for instance, how many people automatically assume that if you don’t believe in God, you must believe in the Devil. Their minds can’t even conceive of the notion that it’s possible to reject the entire mythical power structure of God & Satan/Heaven & Hell–not just the good half. Worse still are those who harbor this uneasy fear that if you don’t believe in God, you can’t have much of a sense of morality or ethics. Actually, given the way in which the Judeo-Christian tradition has relied for the entire length of its history on powerful metaphors of reward and punishment to enforce its own brand of morality (“If you’re good you’ll go to Heaven” / “If you’re bad you’ll go to Hell”), quite the opposite is true. An atheist who doesn’t lie or cheat or steal does so simply out of perceiving the validity of such behavior–not because he’s afraid of being punished or judged if he behaves differently.
Because of the many misconceptions people have of atheists, I found myself increasingly angered as I read through the Sherman piece, which seemed determined to lump Sherman in with, of all things, the fanatical, limelight-hogging televangelist set. The Reader’s portrayal of Sherman comes across as nothing so much as the Flip Side of Jimmy Bakker: a glib, media-mongering old hand who knows how to manipulate words and thoughts to further his cause. The photograph of Sherman as well is uncannily Bakkeresque–coincidence? Perhaps–but the Reader’s slant on the piece was unmistakably in the vein of the Religious Roadside Attraction, replete with verbal parlour tricks and ventriloquist dummy/son parroting the father’s words–albeit a bit timidly at times.
N. Mildred
Speaking of the job he’s doing, if I were the head of American Atheists, Inc., and my guy in the Chicago area wasn’t a glib media monger who knows how to manipulate the press to further the cause, I’d fire him!
