The Teenage Atheist: A Criticism

Teenage rebellions these days
tend to just get WAY out of hand.

All things considered, I was a pretty typical teenager. I grew up in a middle-class suburban neighborhood with my mother, father, and older sister. I watched movies, played video games, and hung out with my group of friends after school. And, like most preteens, I was kind of confused about religion. When I was in early elementary school, I sometimes wished that I knew exactly what it meant to "not say God's name in vain," and I had no idea what to say when some other kid asked me what religion I was. In middle school, I went through a fairly typical middle school Wicca phase. I don't think I even started to "figure out" religion until I hit my teenage years, when I started to settle on the idea that I might not be religious, and that I might even be Atheist.

But this blog isn't about me. It's about the inconsistencies I've seen in my (and others') experiences in exploring religion and Atheism, and the way the Teenage Atheist is portrayed in pop culture. The Teenage Atheist can be seen in a whole slough of novels, movies, and TV shows about adolescents entering adulthood. Of course, the first that may come to mind is Holden Caulfield from The Catcher in the Rye. Fellow fictional atheists include Donnie Darko (Donnie Darko, 2001), Kurt Hummel (Glee, TV Series), Jen Lindley (Dawson's Creek, TV Series), Daria Morgendorffer (Beavis and Butt-head, TV Series), Cassandra Edelstein and Roland (Saved!, 2004), and Liz Warren (Hummingbirds, novel, 2003).

Notice anything similar about all of these characters? I do! They're snarky, hyper-intelligent, weird, trouble-maker teens, and pretty much all... messed up... in one way or another. None of these characters are normal. They have "excuses" for their Atheism. Whether it be a troubled childhood, psychotic episodes, or a tendency towards being awkward and unpopular, nearly all of these characters seems to have a reason for why they turned out as an Atheist.

So, why is this a problem? Tons of other fictional teens struggle with identity in other ways. Teens struggle with sexuality, relationships, pregnancy, authority, and countless other programs quite often on television. These problems are often the main focus of the character's development over the series. In any of these cases, the character has an often clearly negative obstacle to overcome (bullying, struggles with teen pregnancy or the morality of abortion, abuse, etc.); it is clear that these are obstacles to overcome, in which the character must do some soul searching in order to overcome them.

But what about Atheism? It is treated as as a reason why the character is so messed up. Instead of offering up Atheism as a character trait to be explored, Atheism is often the root of the bigger problem. In Saved!, Cassandra Edelstein is an outcast and troublemaker because of her Atheism. In Donnie Darko, the main character struggles with the idea of his thoughts forcing him into being an Atheist (after which, his therapist reassures him that, no, he is not an Atheist). As a whole, Atheism is treated as something that always needs to be struggled over during the teenage years. It is treated as an offshoot of the teenage rebellion phase instead of a sign of maturation or greater understanding of faith.

Don't worry, Donnie. Atheists are people who don't believe in God. You definitely still have a chance, buddy!

This lack of discussion about Atheism as a route of spiritual belief or as a positive or neutral character trait in the shows we broadcast to our children and teens is unhealthy. Although it is sometimes treated as a joke, whether or not Atheism is mocked as a silly system of belief is not actually the issue here. We mock all other kinds of religions, as well as all ethnicity, sexuality, and personality types. The issues is that Atheism is only ever treated as a joke, a phase of rebellion, or an open-ended question. You rarely, if ever, see a teen or young adult fictional character at ease with their Atheism. It is always tied to a history of a troubled, angsty past, or as a fleeting fancy that will pass with age or wisdom.

Free Speech Terrorism

As I am sure many of you newsy types know, there have recently been incredibly violent and emphatic protests outside US Embassy's in predominantly Muslim countries as a result of a film posted on YouTube.

Given the details (or the distinct lack thereof), I have been unable to rationalize this incredible reaction directed specifically at the United States, rather than at the filmmaker. Mostly the problem appears to be that there is NOT a filmmaker. This BBC Article seems to suggest that the maker of the film himself was Egyptian. Indicating that Egyptian religious sects are fighting their battles indirectly through the United States, and the rest of the Arab world is up in arms as a side effect. Whether this is true or not, it does seem to be the case that this film was distinctly meant to upset certain groups and particularly in the direction of the United States.

Before I go any further, I need to define what I mean by terrorism in this instance. I consider terrorism to be the act or acts of deliberately being violent or inflammatory in the name of your own cause, without respect for human life or collateral damage, and possibly with the intention to destroy both.

Given this definition, this film is terrorism. It seems to be deliberately inflammatory, and certainly to it's own ends, without regard for the violence and loss of life it has caused. The fact that it is still unclear who created the film, and that no one has come out and apologized for the film's contents or defended the film in any way seems to indicate that this was either an intended effect or a happy side effect. The maker of this film is obviously complicit with the violence it has caused and is therefore a terrorist by the above definition.

So arrest him,you say! But unfortunately it is not that simple. The creator of this film was completely within his First Amendment rights to free speech. He broke no laws. Inciting violence via free speech is not a crime, and nor should it be. To prevent the strange future dystopia where Americans need assault rifles to fight against the government, we  need free speech. If we give that up, all is lost. Freedom of dissent is necessary and critical to the function of our government and society. It is important that differing opinions be heard and that no one is ever arrested for speaking their mind. An unfortunate byproduct is also the freedom to be incendiary, and to create violence by rhetoric without punishment.

There are many nations that do not permit this kind of behavior. A recent example is Russia, who continues to detain punk band Pussy Riot for their verbal and visual attacks in the government, the type of behavior that passes without comment in the US, as it is very much legal here. China has in the past arrested hundreds of men and women for sending even remotely disloyal e-mails (Amnesty International). This happens almost everywhere but in the US. We are privileged with free speech.

So what can we do here? I urge that we seek the truth about this film. Who made it? What for? If the groups currently protesting understand that they are protesting the acts of a terrorist and not a nation, I believe the tone will change.

-------------------------------------
What do you think? Let us know in the comments!

*I have deliberately not posted the actual film, because I do not think it deserves more views. If you absolutely must see it, Google is your friend.