CBC Analysis
HEATHER MALLICK:
Atheists don’t get it
CBC News Viewpoint | September 23, 2006 | More from Heather Mallick


Heather Mallick has worked as a reporter, copy editor and book review editor at various Toronto newspapers and most recently wrote a column called As If for the Globe and Mail. She has won National Newspaper Awards for both Critical Writing and Feature Writing. Heather writes a political column for the New York Times Syndication Service that runs internationally. Her first book, Pearls in Vinegar, based on an ancient Japanese form of diary, was published by Penguin in 2004. She is currently writing a collection of essays for Knopf Canada, tentatively titled "Cake or Death: The Excruciating Choices of Everyday Life".



May I ask for a moment of silence? Consider the plight of the old-fashioned, bewildered atheist in these times where religion is the new black, so to speak.

For I am an atheist and I am out of my depth. I watch the news about religion with a puzzled stare, unable to fathom the motives of the ultra-religious.What’s going through Mel Gibson’s tiny little brain?

I read of this new Pope, the one who blue-skies in public and makes silly, ill-considered remarks about Islam and apologizes, only to insult Jews in the next breath. This leads to ponderous BBC backgrounders asking: “How infallible is the Pope?” But to an atheist, you’re either infallible or not. By apologizing, he proved himself fallible. Does this mean he has to resign?

The BBC says no. Apparently the Pope only speaks infallibly when he announces ahead of time that he’s going to. This is the journalistic equivalent of “going on the record.”

Also, and I could have told the Pope this, never quote anyone from the 14th century. With the exception of Chaucer, people weren’t at their brightest then. Things didn’t perk up intellectually until the Renaissance. And one word reverberates: Crusades. Blood. Axes. Spikes. Takes two to go on a crusade, and I mean you, Pope Urban II.

As for the Pope pointing out that worshipping the cross was really worshipping the Jewish tool of execution of Christ, it only made this atheist think of that Lenny Bruce line about how if Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.

And all of the above reveal the problem suffered by people like me when the world’s religious types get upset. Devoid of religious belief or interest, I don’t have the faintest idea what people are angry about. Atheists don’t get it. The only joy in these disputes is one I share with the British writer Marina Hyde: She loves to see mad placards in demonstrations. Her favourite was the American soccer mom who had embroidered “God Hates Fags” on the Confederate flag. My favourite is Father Ted’s “Down with this sort of thing.”

Views on mixing religion with news

All I think about religion is that it is a private matter that should never be referred to, in the same way that we are taught never to discuss money. By age six, we know it’s rude to ask what something cost, it’s double rude to say the word “underpants” and it’s double super rude to ask people what religion they are.

This is why stories about religion should never be on the front page of a newspaper. The front page is for facts. Belief should go somewhere else.

But thanks to George W. Bush getting Christian after he quit drinking and Osama bin Laden being upset about American bases on Saudi land (not for nationalistic reasons, I take it), the news just today, to pick one day, is all about Israel killing Muslim (I assume) children in Gaza (the Independent), the Pope attacking non-Christians (the Guardian), Indonesia planning to execute Christian militants for inciting attacks on Muslim militants in the 1998 riots (BBC Online) and the religious right taking over Stephen Harper’s government (The Walrus).

If you believe in one of these religions – and may I say politely, gosh, that’s awfully nice – try to imagine someone like me who can’t fathom the fervour.

Why would somebody not like Jews? You say they killed Christ? That was a gazillion years ago, surely. Also, being an atheist, this is news to me. (I swear, I thought it was the Romans. Or was that Life of Brian?) And Jews are good looking and smart, liberal in outlook and nice to know. There’s principled Lord Woolf and indomitable Seymour M. Hersh, and adorable Jon Stewart and my wonderful dentist, Dr. Klaiman, and that’s just off the top of my head. I love them all equally. I look at Dr. Klaiman’s pictures of his daughters in his office and I want him to adopt me. Anti-Semitism seems insane. I suspect it’s jealousy.

And what do people have against Muslims? They seem such prayerful people, so elegant in their movements and their dress. Yes, they oppress women, but all religions repress women. I’m told that Hindus don’t like Muslims, which is why the partition of India was a hideous slaughter you don’t hear much about because everyone is so relieved they don’t have to live in an alien neighbourhood. But what is Hinduism? Atheists find all religious details intensely boring.

I do know that all Indian food is delicious. Can we agree on that?

Next on the religion list?

Who’s next? What is a Baptist? There’s something about Episcopalians that sounds posh. Buddhism seems sensible. Am I wrong? Protestants have no fun. I don’t know any Catholics. Actually I do, but they haven’t mentioned it because they’re Canadian Catholics so they don’t want to be loud about it. But I observe that even the anti-abortion Catholics don’t have 13 children. Catholics are always described as “devout” but when it comes to birth control, not so much. I quite like them for this. “Darling, not tonight, we can feed three children, but not 17, the Pope wasn’t speaking infallibly when he said that bit.”

Wasn’t he in the Hitler Youth? I forgive him for that, sort of, so why can’t he forgive other people? Isn’t the beauty of Catholicism that it forgives all? I learned that from The Sopranos. So why is the Pope so irate?

Atheism is relaxing. I cannot grasp the nettle of any news story involving religion because it makes me sleepy. I suspect most Canadians are like me. But they won’t write letters to the CBC defending my right to be clueless about religion. Why? Because they’re Canadian and they can’t be bothered. I think that’s kind of nice.

This Week

One thing that puzzles me about CanLit is that we praise it so much, but ignore wonderful books written by Canadians and published overseas. Refusal Shoes, Tony Saint’s wonderful 2003 novel about being an immigration officer at Heathrow, is one example. And why hadn’t I heard before about Books, Baguettes & Bedbugs: The Left Bank World of Shakespeare & Co? It was published in the U.S. last year as Life Was Soft There, a much better title for this eccentric, heart-wrenching memoir by former Ottawa Citizen reporter Jeremy Mercer doing an Orwell-style Down and Out in Paris and London. I’m sick of being blasted from all angles by tales of the rich. The poor have an equally interesting story to tell.


LETTERS:

Ms. Mallick's commentary on an atheist's view of religion wasn't so tongue-in-cheek as to be a shining example of what Robertson Davies called the "dry mocke." So why does it seem that her none-too-disguised use of irony and sarcasm was totally lost on many of my fellow respondents? Is humour now out of the question in public discourse, or did some folks just not get it?

Some of the reader feedback put me in mind of those awkward situations when I make some sarcastic remark, which totally overreaches my audience and causes offence. It is always painful for those of us who appreciate the value of the dry mocke to be obliged to say, "Take it easy, I was just being sarcastic." I feel for you, Ms. Mallick.

— John MacKay | Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

I have no idea whether or not all atheists "don't get it," but I can say with a great degree of certainty that Heather Mallick certainly doesn't.

I applaud her for being steadfast in her beliefs and for sharing them with the world, but the fact that she seems to revel in her lack of understanding about various religions and their tenants tells me that she should not be the poster child for atheists, Canadian or otherwise.

An opinion article is exactly that - opinion. But her tendency to write about issues (such as the doctrine on papal infallibility) with only a sketchy reference to actual facts is disturbing. Whether or not this was an attempt at getting her point across is irrelevant - as an established journalist she owes her audience the courtesy of offering them factual information if she wishes to offer information at all. Maybe some of her readers won't retain anything from her piece, but some might come away with it with some new and mistaken ideas.

I will join Ms. Mallick in her moment of silence for her poor, bewildered atheists. Then I will offer one for people of all faiths who have been, once again, misrepresented by the media.

— Elisia Saam | San Francisco

Heather Mallick's carefully crafted writer's perspective of flippant ignorance on the subject of religion seems to conceal a deeply felt critique. And it's really a well considered critique, which we should be hearing more of.

Religion is a personal choice, possibly personal heritage, and no one (not the Pope, not Bush, nor Osama) has the right to dictate their beliefs to the rest of the world. If there is a God (and I write as a Hindu, which faith includes the possibility of agnosticism; hence the 'if') - if there is a God, he/she is supposed to be universal, and beyond our poor mortal understanding.

There can be no excuse for this heedless conviction that one has personally pigeon-holed the truth about God, and that that somehow gives one bragging rights (or bashing rights) over people of different faiths.

I'm not just being politically correct. We're all equally ignorant, Christian and Muslim, Jew and Hindu, and it's blatant hubris to think we're in sole possession of the Truth.

It's also not bashing any one religion to suggest that every one of them has inherent flaws. Yes, even mine. And yours.

—S Dakshinamurti | Winnipeg

Like most people who do not wish to think about these things, Heather has mistaken Agnosticism for Atheism. Heather is not the thoughtful, rational atheist but the vague, wishy-washy agnostic.

Atheists in fact generally do understand religious matters and cerebrally reject them, while agnostics cannot muster their attention from Desperate Housewives for long enough to figure anything out for themselves.

For a brilliant discussion of the distinction I recommend anything by Douglas Adams, but in particular his 'unfinished' work, The Salmon of Doubt - further in particular the interview with American Atheists and the lecture "Is There an Artificial God".

—Chris Addy | Salmon Arm, B.C.

Heather Mallick apparently claims to be an "aw shucks, let's just all get along" sort of atheist, but flippant dismissal passing as journalism is appalling.

Her comment that religion "is a private matter that should never be referred to" betrays a more troubling mindset that would muzzle those who differ with her, or at least relegate their views to a ghetto.

It also reveals an ignorance of her subject matter, in that the world religions she so fondly denigrates hold as a tenet the propagation of their beliefs through evangelism and teaching. Of course, Ms Mallick does admit that she is absolutely clueless in regard to her subject matter -- which raises the question of why her article passes for journalism at CBC.

—Phil Crossman | Minto, N,B.

An interesting and well thought out article. I am an extremely religious person, while fully understanding the difference between God, and the path to how people connect to the Lord.

Religion is important to current events because of history; this was the channel that leaders often used to control their citizens, thereby creating an atmosphere condusive to conversion, cooersion, and unfortunately, fear. This desire to control people is still manifesting itself in modern world.

Even though Western civilization encourages the separation between Church and State, there are still many rural places where Religion is still being used as a way to garner support for the ruling institute. It really is all about power and politics, and until that comes to realization, it will continue to be front page news.

—Pamela Purchar | Toronto

It hard to know where to start in showing how incredibly wrong you are in your latest column.

First of all, read a little about catholicism before you start trashing it. If you did you would learn that much of our thinking philosophical, scientific or other wise has come from Christianity, including elevating the status of women.

Second, read up on history to learn about the history of Christianity and Islam. The Crusades were a reaction to muslim aggression.

Third, lot's of people bash catholics. That not courageous, original or intelligent. Fourth, you forget that its was atheism that has been responsible for a far greater number of deaths. Just ask Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

—Byron Perry | Burlington, Ont.

Overall, this article reeks of carefulness and cowardice. Ms Mallick rants endlessly about Crosses, Christians, Catholics, God, Baptists, Episcopalians, the Pope etc., while offering a few tiny token references to other religions. As all socialistic, atheist journalists know - if you want a few cheap, safe laughs, crap on Christianity. It's followers won't even burn an effigy of you.

About Muslims, Mallick writes: "Yes, they oppress women, but all religions repress women. Note the careful word change: "oppress" becomes "repress" - a subtle manipulation of language to make it seem like all religions are equally culpable when it comes to denying woman equal rights - as if banning women from the priesthood can be compared to shrouding them from head to toe and forcing them into arranged marriages.

There is much moral relativism going on these days with respect to Islam. Some of it may be justifiable. But let's keep a little perspective here shall we? Comparing repression in the Christian world to oppression in the Muslim world is like comparing a punch in the mouth to a shotgun blast to the head.

—Ron Laffin | Toronto

Not believing in God is not the same as not beleiving in religion. Heather Mallick clearly has a problem with religion and she might be surprised to learn that Jesus didn't particularly care for religion either, as his most harsh comments were reserved for the religious leaders of the day. In fact He would probably agree with most of what she says about religion.

Religion is a bit like Marxism. It has good intentions but usually ends up making things worse. As Bruce Cockburn says: "trying to build the New Jerusalem but ending up with New York"

If you believe that people should play nice and treat each other well, you believe in God. Jesus is just that noble sentiment manifested as a person. Take the time to read the gospels, and it becomes clear the fallibility of men is the reason they were written. Being religious doesn't mean you believe in God.

Does religion have any value then. Think of it as a beat up old truck, held together with duct tape and bailing wire, that can barely move down the road. In the back however is a pile of gold. Most people don't want the truck, but they don't mind the gold. Problem is, the truck is how the gold is delivered.

—Len Ralph | Victoria, B.C.

I really enjoyed Heather's commentary on being an athiest in a religion-basted world. I'm not an athiest myself, I'm a pretty laid back Protestant. And by the way Heather, we do have fun.

I agree that everywhere we look these days, religious-based news is front page. And it's ALWAYS bad. I've said for years that if there was no religion in the world, the world would be a peaceful place. Virtually every conflict that exists today is at least partly, and usually wholly, because of religion. The wars of past ages fit this template as well.

What I don't understand is how religion is at the root of it all. Don't virtually all religions teach values that equate to the "Golden Rule"? You know the one... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So where does ANYBODY get off bashing entire communities of people because of their own beliefs? It is truly heinous.

—Deborah Burton | Mount Pearl , N.L.

I have no problem whatever with Ms. Mallick's opinions, but her arguments in support of them display a level of ignorance that is startling to see on a news site. At what point does an 'informed perspective' on how people who know nothing about religion think, count as a diatribe against religions from a self-congratulatingly uninformed perspective?

Do you propose in future to host Viewpoints about 'not getting' science, history, economics, ethics, or law? Is the role of CBC News to inform, or to celebrate ignorance?

—James Anglin | Germany

This woman, Heather Mallick, is obviously a product of large urban, Torontonian, politically correct thinking and misses the mark completely when commenting about religion and news media.

Do you really think that being an atheist gives you some perspective from a higher moral ground? I think it just means you have no way to define your spirituality and you're trying to pawn that off as being able to be more grounded. Perhaps that makes sense in a confused post-menaposal way.

I am a former practicing Catholic and non-Torontonian Ontarian, who has discovered that the message of 'treating others as you would want to be treated yourself' has been lost somewhere in the streets of multi-culturalism (an experiment that is failing miserably worldwide I might add) where religious and cultural tolerance is now demanded.

Surely even an atheist can find the merrit in that age old message can't she? And she certainly does not need to get on the Mel Gibson bashing bandwagon simply because she finds Jews "good looking and smart". Besides I am sure you've caught yourself thinking of Mel in your quiet moments at one time or another. Are you going to forgo those memories just to be part of the Politically Correct team?

—Irre Levant | Not Toronto

At last we hear from a voice of reason. She states her thoughts in such a gentle, non-confrontational tone. I understand her bewilderment.

I too cannot believe how much coverage is alloted to the views of religious leaders in our mainstream news. There are so many religious groups and they have such divergent ideas.

Instead of trying to dominate, they should concentrate on tolerating each other. It is frightening to see the media being used to promote the agendas of these people. I prefer to read articles that contain facts, hard evidence, and logic. After all, religion, or the lack of it, is a personal choice.

—Valerie Zuke | Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.

Thank you, Heather, for stating the obvious. Why is it not obvious to so many people? I have indeed learned not to speak my athesitic opinions except among people I know share them.

Even people who don't practice their professed beliefs get so wounded. But we must, and I include myself, speak out as you are.

—Dave Goforth | Sudbury, Ont.

I want to thank Heather Malick for her courageous and eloquent defence of the most hated minority group on the planet - those who do not believe in a God or gods. We atheists need more people like her to speak up, and to speak with grace, tact and humility as she does.

Only by showing that we are as concerned with truth, goodness and justice as anyone else will we be able to reform our tarnished image, and claim the place in society that has been denied us for so long.

—Tim Munro | Pickering, Ont.

No, it's just Heather Mallick who doesn't get it. I'm an atheist, but judging by Mallick's ditzy (an affectation, I hope) confession of ignorance, I'm somewhat more worldly than she is.

Yes, religion is irrational, but it should be reduced by rational examination, not with flippant remarks that call to mind a naïve, quizzical teenager. "Gee whiz? What's up with those kooky religious folk?" Gee whiz, since she's plainly so ill-equipped to critique the subject, why doesn't she quit wasting my time and show a little respect for those who practice religion and use the tools of the atheist's trade--logic and reason--to dig a little deeper?

Whatever she does, she should not imply that her shallow opinion is that of all atheists. Rather than undermining rational debate with silliness, Mallick ought to see if she has any genuine wisdom to share on the subject. Otherwise she's not doing atheism any favours.

— K. Graham | Calgary

Mallick's article "Atheists Don't Get It", was a weakly disguised hate rant against Christianity. But this is hardly the problem with her article. She dicloses a remarkable lack of knowledge about world religions. Further more, she blames Christians for most of the current "anti-semitism", while such is really that of Radical Muslims (even here in Canada) worldwide.

She goes on again to bash the Pope, American Christians (for instance, she hate George Bush, who is a Christian; therefore, Christiany is evil)... in short, her naive and belligerent and glib commentary shows she has very little knowledge of world history or world religions.

It is most interesting that she takes great pains to avoid criticizing the Islamic Faith (and Radical Muslims). Christians are the villains as far as her article is concerned.

I am very upset that my tax dollars pay for such hate-mongering from this anti-Christian bigot. Her article is unthinkably naive and without rational and knowledgeable research or intelligent though.

—Paul Maurice | St. Thomas, Ont.

Congrats on well written article! It does seem like every news story nowdays is dominated by religion. Certainly true about all the world's conficts. And we continue talking about the apparent separation of the religion and the state.

I really don't get it most of the time. Good to know I am not alone. Thank you Heather Mallik.

—Dmitri Zanozin | Stewart, B.C.

Heather Mallick is, while sounding cute, still clueless and illogical. A professed atheist should not comment on something they don't understand - however, depending on one's interpretation of Religion, when it refers to one's belief then non-belief becomes just another form of Religon, just as Communism and Nazism was or is.

Most human beings are imperfect, therefore their belief systems or lack thereof will be imperfect. It would be good is people where to study Plato, that way they get hold os some essential Logic - particularly good for Atheists.

A somewhat more logical approach is used by agnostics - albeit somewhat lazy in thought. We will need to differentiate between organized religions (they are similar to political parties) and religion in the wider sense - the latter being a logical integration of all life into a coherent Oneness and until mankind learns to approach each other ad well as the external world from this perspective there will be wars and dissatisfaction.

—Peter Staniek | Montreal

Thank you Heather for your insight and observations. That article needs to be on the front page, not the usual fare. Yes, it's true, atheists don't get it! One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know why.

—Neil Douglas | Mississauga, Ont.

Heather says that religious topics should be kept out of the news because it is private and bad manners to talk about it, the same as it is bad manner to talk about money.

Interesting thought since we have whole sections of newspapers dedicated to the topic of money and finances. It is also considered bad manners to talk about sex (she doesn't mention that), but does anybody care? Sex seems to be the really hot topic all through every section of the newspaper.

Because she is not interested in religeous topics,she seems to advocate that no one should speak or write about religeon publicly. We had a few former world leaders who were of that opinion also. Fortunately most of them were deposed.

—Jan Hicks | St. Catharines, Ont.

Heather Mallick's column entitled Atheists Don't Get It was refreshing in how blithely she misunderstands religious tenants and, more importantly, why people are still willing and sometimes eager to kill over them.

I too was fortunate enough to grow up completely ignorant of all religious thought (well-I know Jesus was born for our Christmas gifts). I was 20 years old or so before I actually attended a religious service, out of pure intellectual curiosity; for the record, I didn't make it a habit.

I also commend Ms. Mallick for trying to cultivate understanding and fraternity based on *human* values. I don't believe and never will that anyone is good (or bad) merely because s/he adheres to a certain religious creed-the person is good through human values, and religion is merely the accidental manifestation of such valor.

One comment I would make, however, concerns putting stories of religion on the front page. I'm actually for it (as long as it's not proselytizing)-it can put into relief how barbaric, senseless, and hypocritical religious strife is.

Of course, we've had thousands of years of it, so maybe a few more articles on the cover page won't change that. But one must hope for and believe in something.

—Andrew Locatelli | Montreal

I am completely in agreement with you. It is startling how religious everything seems these days. Touchy subject though. I just say to people that I think individual (or collective) spirituality is fine, helps people get through diifficult times, great, BUT please don't use it beyond personal therapy, please. Highly disconcerting.

As I point out to my Catholic cousin, there is no arguing with religion, because arguments (and thereby reaching consensus) requires a few commonalities and rationalism and is not helped when a supernatural deity is invoked that is said to have more than a passing bearing on events. Classic conversation killer, that is. And not rational.

—Craig Stewart | Montreal





^TOP
MENU
ANALYSIS & VIEWPOINT MAIN PAGE » REPORTS FROM ABROAD
CBC CONTRIBUTORS: Editor's Notes
Mary Sheppard
Global View: Ghana
Colleen Ross
Health
Maureen Taylor
Minority Report
Natasha Fatah
The National
Rex Murphy
On the Money
Tom McFeat
Postcard from America
Rosa Hwang
Schlesinger's View
Joe Schlesinger
Army Reservist
Mike Vernon

FREELANCE CONTRIBUTORS: Cafe Chat
June Chua
Disability Matters
Living with a disability
Global View: Asia
Ashifa Kassam
Global View: China
Kirk Kenny
Global View: China
Trevor Metz
Global View: China
Sylvia Yu Chao
Global View: Denmark
Jessica Grant Jørgensen
Global View: India
Siva Swaminathan
Global View: Ireland
Clare Byrne
Global View:Japan
Dan Hilton
Global View: Middle East
Jim Reed
Global View: South Korea
Yoav Cerralbo
Global View: Uganda
Jonathan Woodward
Global View: Zambia
Mike Quinn
Inside Medicine
Sandra Donaldson
Inside Ottawa
Chris Waddell
Legal Affairs
Michelle Mann
Maritime Log
Vicki Robertson
Media Watch
Ira Basen
Modern Living
Georgie Binks
Observations
Martin O'Malley
On the other hand
Anthony Westell
Politics
Larry Zolf
Schooling
Mary-Ellen Lang
Science Decoded
Sumitra Rajagopalan
Science Friction
Stephen Strauss
A Soldier's Story
Sgt. Russell D. Storring
A Soldier's Diary from Afghanistan
Cpl. Brian Sanders
Stand on Guard
Heather Mallick
West Coast Living
Gloria Chang
Western View
Terilyn S. Paulgaard

» PAST CONTRIBUTORS

ABOUT VIEWPOINT:
Viewpoint is CBC.ca's place for informed opinion and commentary. Our goal is to provide a range of informed perspectives from around the world and here at home on issues of interest to Canadians. All material published in the Viewpoint section is subject to CBC’s journalistic policy, standards and practices.

Writing for Viewpoint
We accept queries from people with significant expertise in their field and previous writing experience. We are interested in domestic and international contributions. We do not accept unsolicited finished pieces.

If you want to contribute to Viewpoint, please send your query to letters@cbc.ca with VIEWPOINT in the subject line and please include three samples of your published work. Columns are typically 800 words in length and focus on timely issues, events or personal stories with wide appeal. Please familiarize yourself with our content before submitting your ideas. Only those accepted will be contacted.
FEEDBACK:
Questions or comments? Email us!
MORE:
Print this page