At times, I have had Christian and other religious commenters argue that morality was developed by religion. I think that many secular, agnostic, and atheist folks have heard this claim in one way or another — if we do not believe in God or do not adhere to a religion, from where do we get our morality? Recently, Jeff at Wheat & Tares used it as one of his points on his discussion of atheism.

One of the things I typically do in instances like these is to show examples of where Christian morality says one thing, show where that is disputed or disagreed with by others (especially secular/agnostic/atheist folks), and then point out that if morality came from God or religion, then we shouldn’t see that disagreement. Often, my religious interlocutor will argue that what is disagreeable in religion represents a distortion or an instance of hypocrisy…so I’ll point out that how that disagreement really isn’t a matter of people failing to live up to their religions, but them living up to their religions with stunning fidelity.

For example, conservative Christians will point out that the Bible is clear on homosexuality, and although liberal Christians will quibble around whether certain passages mean certain things or not, the relevant point is that when conservative Christians act on their beliefs regarding homosexuality regarding things like same-sex marriage, this isn’t just “Christians acting poorly” or “Christians acting hypocritically” — this is what their religion actually believes and they are following that. So someone who disagrees with that is basing their morality on a system separate from those religious precepts and that God.

Some of my interlocutors have gone one step further, however. They say that even secular people, when they are raised in historically Christian countries as in Europe or in North America, are steeped in Christian discourse and virtues, so even their departure from Christianity is particularly Christian. For example, they might say that the idea of the equality of people is a Christian idea, so people arguing for the equality of women, equality of LGBT people, etc., in the space of civil rights borrow that idea from Christianity even if Christians disagree on the application of that idea for various reasons.

I’m not sure I totally buy that argument, but it’s something to think about.

However, where some of my interlocutors go even further is that they suggest that this system only works as long as the Christian foundation exists. So, they would say if you look to secular societies that don’t have a Christian foundation, you have very different results. But even more…if societies with a Christian foundation forgot those Christian roots, then they would also get very different results.

In my life, I can see something like this: I recognize that being raised in the Mormon church gives me a very Mormon foundation. Even as an ex-Mormon, I have Mormonism as my primary religious language, and my habits are Mormon. Even if I depart from the Word of Wisdom, I am not at the same level as someone who was never Mormon in terms of familiarity to bars, alcohol, and so forth.

But if I were to have a child, it would be highly unlikely for them to have a similar relationship to Mormonism. They probably wouldn’t find the fringe Mormon stuff I find interesting to be all that interesting…but even more, they probably wouldn’t have the deep-seated Mormon intuitions that I still have in many areas. (And likewise, I do not have the pastiche of intuitions and awareness that my parents — who are converts with more diverse churches in their histories — have.)

That being said, I want to give a caveat right now. As I wrote in my previous church on the metaphor of Church as Spouse, I am not sure there is a pure Mormonism or a pure Christianity. I think it makes sense to say in certain contexts that America is a deeply Christian nation, but I also think it makes sense to say in other contexts that Christianity as practiced in America — or practiced anywhere, really — absorbs flavors from the surrounding not-necessarily-so-Christian culture. I can see why Christians would want to look at these instances as being “Christians not acting in accordance with Christianity,” whereas I often look at these instances as being, “what Christianity as practiced by 21st century Americans actually entails.”

So, the caveat is this: the things I will describe throughout this post are not just secular things. I can think of several Christians who would take similar views and not feel that those things violate their beliefs at all.

Forgiveness

In some ways, this post is a response to my earlier post “All Is Forgiven: Why Conservative Christians Get Away With Adultery.” Therein, I hypothesized that Christianity builds failure into its theology, so individual moral failures are not problematic if someone apologizes and repents of those failures. (That being said, I think Jewelfox had a great counterpoint that this forgiveness isn’t universal…focusing on well-known white Christian men obscures the fact that the forgiveness afforded to these men could just be their male privilege in an intensely authoritarian, patriarchal system. In contrast, such forgiveness might not be similarly afforded to women or children.)

…So, forgiveness is already a problematized concept in Christianity…

Yet.

It seems to me that some Christians idealize forgiveness (even if in actuality, they may not live up to those standards) in a way that many non-Christians do not. (And again, I caveat: many Christians will not idealize forgiveness…and also, many non-Christians will. Perhaps what I am describing is not a Christian vs. Non-Christian dichotomy, but just differing trends I’ve seen in people of various stripes)

The example I want to use is Kim Davis.

If you aren’t aware of the basic story, Kim Davis is a born-again Christian who a county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky. As part of her conservative Christian beliefs, she does not agree with same-sex marriage. As a result, she has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This is not OK, as even the Supreme Court has spoken that she must issue the licenses, but she continues to refuse.

Predictably, this news story is a gold mine for outrage on the internet. And predictably, that outrage picks at a lot of aspects of Kim’s life…as another blogger has discussed, the outrage has included general misogyny, body shaming, combing over her own personal relationship details (to argue that she is a hypocrite and thus unqualified to comment on anyone else’s marriage), and calls for her to go to jail. But the thing I want to discuss is the last part of the blog post:

Finally, I’m deeply uncomfortable with people excited about the prospect of Kim Davis being jailed. Why is the carceral state the solution? Why must imprisonment be a real value that we embrace, particular as a means of increasing freedoms? Especially when we live in a country with a wholly corrupt, dehumanizing carceral system? Why do we continue to insist upon, as Chandan Reddy points out, degrees of oppressive state control to bulwark liberal freedoms? Are we not more than this? In short, Kim Davis is a flawed, messy human. She’s one that is marshaling powerful, aggrieved Christian hegemony to make terrible choices. That should be called out without attacking her body, her sexual/personal choices, her gender, or wishing imprisonment. If we are committed to transformative justice, than we NEED to ‪#‎bebetter‬. We need to be more than this. We need to not embrace regressive, dark, or terrible things because we think it makes us free or more righteous.

I note that despite the critique of the carceral system and even the “powerful, aggrieved Christian hegemony,” this blogger self-describes as a “snarky queer black unicorn” and on the “About Me” page adds “Christian”. This part that I quote, especially that last paragraph, fits into a particular Christian narrative — Kim Davis is wrong, yes. (Early in the blog post, the author describes Davis as “making vile, calculated fuckery to deny legal rights to couples to marry”, so there is no disagreement on the actions’ wrongness.) She is a “flawed, messy human,” yes. But aren’t we all? is the implied afterword. We must be committed to transformative justice not just because she needs to be better because we need to be better.

Another commenter on another site put it like this:

Be kind to Kim Davis. She is wrong – morally and legally and constitutionally and she is just plain wrong. But she is not evil. She really, truly believes in some things that are wrong. Wrong is not Evil. She never understood the sophistication, strategy and goals of the people who want her in jail. They need a martyr. So, let’s talk about them! Who is funding her lawyers? Why are they advising her to go to prison? She is not evil. She’s probably no worse than you are, on balance. Kim Davis needs and deserves love and kindness.

She’s probably no worse than you are, on balance. This is an idea that I hear from Christians sometimes, even if it doesn’t feel like it is acted upon. Everyone sins, so everyone needs grace, right? (Yet it seems that some sins are hounded on more than others.)

Yet this blog post and this comment comes into response to people who think otherwise. I cannot say what particular comment triggered these articles and comments, but I can say that this general sentiment is going around on the internet. And I’ll list just a few quotes:

i don’t care what someone is in their heart of hearts if they are doing evil.

and

I don’t think this is about anyone deserving kindness. Do your job or quit.

and this point by point response:

Be kind to Kim Davis. No. But she is not evil. She might be a delightful person, she might be Hitler reincarnated, I don’t care. Her actions are evil. She is not evil. She’s probably no worse than you are, on balance. Nope. She’s way worse than me. I don’t believe that some stupid bullshit written two thousand years ago gives me the ability to deny basic equality to a class of people. Kim Davis needs and deserves love and kindness. No, she needs to lose her fucking job and/or go to jail for refusing to do it. I give zero fucks what she looks like or wears or how many times she’s been married. She’s using horseshit religious garbage to tell people like me that we don’t get to be full citizens. Fuck that shit sideways. She needs and deserves to be shunned, unemployed, and jailed for refusing to do her fucking job. Seriously. This is not some oh haha misunderstanding, this is not a point upon which reasonable people can disagree: she is perpetuating and perpetrating bigotry and hatred and she needs to cut it the fuck out. She can go on believing whatever antiquated nonsense she wants. What she’s not allowed to do is ignore the law of the land that says me, and people like me, actually get to be full citizens.

Now, again, I haven’t checked to see the religious backgrounds of all of these commenters…as I caveated above, I think on any number of issues, you could find non-Christian folks advocating for forgiveness and Christian folks advocating for the swift and uncompromising gavel of justice (I mean, normally, don’t we associate being “tough on crime” as a very conservative, often Christian position?), but whatever the nominal backgrounds of the participants involved, there seems to be a different approach to forgiveness.