This is an observation that’s been lurking in the back of my mind for some time now, and I finally decided to set it down in detail. It is sure to make quite a few religious people get defensive, but the point is, that’s probably inevitable.

Let’s start with the simple aspect, and I’m going to fall back onto my old favorite, gravity (as well as subtle but terrible puns, it seems.) Do we ever see anyone arguing for the existence, function, or logic of gravity? Can there be found, anywhere, even the faintest vestige of doubt that it exists? It seems ludicrous to even ask those questions, doesn’t it?

Why, then, do so many religious folk get uptight, like, all of the fucking time? How does the absolute assurance not only of a creator, but one that has distinctly outlined exactly what happens to true believers and nonbelievers, result in the widespread anxiety that forms so much of the public face of religion? How does the idea that same-sex couples can receive legal recognition of their partnership foster so much ire? How does teaching evolution in school count as denying someone’s religion? Why should the eradication of “under god” in the pledge of allegiance (a completely irrelevant ritual to 99.9979% of schoolkids) provoke so much backlash? Truth is truth, right? How can omnipotence be threatened in the slightest?

A ridiculous number of online articles that even mention evolution will receive disparaging comments asserting that evolution is anything from a mere theory to an outright lie, and the vast majority of these comments are, not to put too fine a point on it, distinctly petulant and bratty in tone. Provoked? Not hardly – it’s next to impossible to find any article about evolution that even mentions religion, much less makes any claim that it’s disproved by natural selection. But is it an inferred attack anyway? The case could be made, but then again, it could be made for virtually any science article, as well as any article that mentions a religion other than the one the testy commenter follows. Yet even an inferred attack doesn’t justify the type of responses seen so often.

If you’re a public figure that even mentions homosexuality, secularism, atheism, or merely reducing religious privilege, you can expect a storm of messages promising your eternal torture and assuring you of your gross immorality, with the addition of a few threats of direct violence – because, you know, religion has that ‘force for peace’ thing going on. Point out that some law or practice is unconstitutional and you’ll also invite the diatribes produced from spittle-flecked keyboards. And I shouldn’t have to point this out, but this is not from some marginalized and openly-targeted minority faith, but mostly from those ‘good christians’ that not only make up a majority in this country, but enjoy the frequent rump-osculation from every political party as well, not to mention quite a few perks from the bare idea that religion should be respected. In fact, that’s a favorite word among the religious, a hell of a lot of whom somehow believe such a thing only goes one way. And while there certainly are exceptions, people who would never stoop to such juvenile tactics, don’t be looking for them to correct their brethren, or even suggest civil discourse.

I am a great fan of objectivity, though in some cases the attempt to demonstrate it is pointless, and only worthwhile because this entire post will be summarily dismissed otherwise. So, are these comments being made by children? Well, of course they are, duh! Oh, you mean actual adolescents, below legal age or whatever? The evidence doesn’t really support it; the posts often take place in forums where other obviously youthful comments don’t appear, and where topics of teen interest are few. It’s often not hard to distinguish a comment from a youth, and this is not consistently demonstrated. Moreover, adolescents jumping into adult discussions with derisive commentary just isn’t a common practice – though there are mitigating circumstances that we’ll look at shortly. And finally, if the majority of those holding such attitudes were under voting age, then the politicians wouldn’t be pandering to them at all, would they? Not to mention that we all have personal experience with fully-grown people who demonstrate these outlooks, and I can say that with utter confidence.

Is it fear? Well, of course – but very likely something more than that too. Just the possibility of being wrong doesn’t make people get that uptight, that outright nasty – it takes a lot more, the fear of losing something valuable. That something valuable is privilege, the status that is gained from the very idea of religion. It is important for them to be recognized as superior, because of their very choice of religion – otherwise what would be the point? It’s kind of like when big sister is left in charge, and the younger siblings ignore her orders, safe in the knowledge that she cannot wield the authority (and/or the punishments) that the parents can. Impotent rage takes over.

This would mean that faith, in such cases, doesn’t come from logic or moral guidance or even the reassurance that there is a plan of a benevolent overseer, but from insecurity, the desperation for a special status. If this seems doubtful, consider how often religious symbols are openly displayed in the home, on someone’s person, on the car… who needs to know about this? The omniscient god?

Interestingly, the similarities between this and discussions regarding aliens and conspiracies and such are manifest, in fact almost identical: the same blustering schoolyard attitude, the same condescending and insulting approaches, the same name-calling – and even the same old hackneyed sound bites, over and over and over again. That last bit says a lot all on its own, because it’s not like these sound bites haven’t been answered and repudiated, nor is it likely in any way that doing so yet again will have any affect. The appearance of such arguments is a distinct indicator that the user openly ignores any and all contradictions or corrections – they are not in search of what’s right, only what validates them. And when this validation seems weak – when it seems like it’s being ignored or simply doesn’t have any application at all, when their status is worthless – they strike out with open animosity. It does not provide peace of mind in the slightest – but perhaps a piece of their mind to bestow upon others, at least.

This is not to oversimplify anyone’s motivations, which may be complex, but it bears consideration as a distinct factor in light of the responses; sports and politics are capable of fostering the same. The relation to these is probably not coincidental either, since the convincing, demonstrable superiority of either sports teams or political parties is just as ethereal; it’s not a sign of confidence, no matter how one looks at it.

But since so much of religious belief, and indeed so much of many human behaviors, is prompted by what others are doing, we should take a look at this too; it’s giving more credit than is warranted to assume that all such actions come through careful consideration. There remains the distinct possibility – actually the very high probability – that such attitudes are promoted directly by churches, and the threatened, defensive demeanor is what the flock is encouraged to have, by either the passive beliefs of those around them or the active teachings of their church. This fits in remarkably well with the constant repetition of those aforementioned sound bites, which must be coming from somewhere; such consistency is not generally found among other topics.

Which is a very curious line of thought. Does this mean (or to be more accurate, how often does this mean) that churchgoers are actively steered towards insecurity and looming threat rather than, as we are repeatedly assured, the peace of mind that religiosity promotes? Instead of providing answers and confidence, how many churches play mind games with their followers by making them paranoid? The ‘wolf at the door’ tactic has been used for centuries, often enough by political parties trying to create a common, manipulative cause, and this pretty much defines the idea of satan and evil in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong – people don’t need help being insecure, or seeking some pointless, effortless manner of feeling superior because of it. But that just means churches have a common trait that they can exploit, just like they have for centuries when targeting the disadvantaged or sending missionaries around. And we can’t deny the appeal of becoming ‘better’ just by performing some inane ritual, rather than expending some effort towards honest improvement. But isn’t it funny how this superiority somehow fails to instill confidence?

So how does that happen? Is it a program of careful manipulation, the creation of a specific set of circumstances where the chosen folk are under constant threat from the pagan scientists and Teh Gays? Or is it the dissonance of hearing the assurances from the churches of how things ‘must be’ but failing to see any actual evidence of such? Or is it simply an unaddressable insecurity, to be found no matter what? Or any combination of those, or anything else besides? That will be left as an exercise – I know what I’ve seen plenty of evidence of myself, including the specific assignments for teens, without any useful background, to go to science and secular websites to post their diatribes for church credit. But this is by no means an exhaustive and controlled study.

Funny, though, it simply doesn’t work. While condescension is occasionally a wake-up call to someone being arrogant or assumptive, most times it’s simple annoying, almost the exact opposite of convincing. The abject ignorance of most of the arguments is plainly evident to anyone even remotely aware of the fields usually addressed, and the rabidly defensive responses visibly well out of proportion to the ‘threat’ of same-sex marriage or allowing women to drive cars – it’s remarkably easy to look like a loon. And it says an awful lot that these tactics are still being promoted.