My own theory of why atheist relationships scare people: personal or political

Reading a lot about atheism lately, (atheist all my life), and hearing about political identifications, and also reading about relationships, a common thought just came to me:

Religion and political party assignments and group identifications all offer short-cuts to pseudo-relationship. They’re easier, but shallow.

Religious and political group identifications allow the feeling of connection without the risk of a true, personal, emotional exchange. It’s a pseudo-relationship.

For instance, I was looking at a photo online of a woman with Bernie at a podium, both smiling. The tagline is: “ Voters warm to the idea of atheist political leaders.” Or something to that effect.

The assumption is that it’s easier to identify with religious candidates because the group has paved the way for the leaders to say what the followers have been programmed to hear.

And it struck me that, “of course, the easier route is to just follow your particular tribe and follow your assigned leader, rather than really understanding the issues and how each candidate would address them.” This woman in this photo had her own, true emotional feelings for this potential leader. There isn’t a political action committee telling us that if we don’t support Bernie, we’ll go to hell. She just likes him!

But the same goes for the personal relationships: Because the woman at the podium wasn’t required by her tribe to support him, she chose him for entirely personal, emotional reasons, and the look on his face reflects his understanding of this: They’re sharing true understanding and emotional bonding, that was not staged or established by the surrounding societal structure. Those smiles reflected real feelings. She feels he’s really heard her true personal concerns, and he’s ready to address them. He feels like his message has been appreciated by her and the other people at the event. But instead of it being the party line, it’s Bernie’s own personal take on things, not something a large group fed to him.

If you drop your other biases and expectations and group afilliations and just bond with another for your own true, emotional reasons, the relationship will be more personal and fulfilling and lasting. But it will require a more personal risk: Instead of each of you using the other to promote your group ideology and afilliation, each person would risk real rejection in a very personal and emotional way. The relationship requires revealing your true, inner self, because you’re not just going along with the group-think. It’s up to you to be available as you are, not as your group tells you to be. If you get dumped, it will be the real you that was rejected.

When you get involved with another religious person because he/she validates your group ideology and identity, you aren’t risking much at all, because the relationship isn’t really about the real you or the real other person: It’s about your shared ideological identifications. It’s a pseudo-relationship but it’s easier. Less risk, but I would also argue, with shallow rewards. (Insert Duggar and Palin family anecdotes here.)

So, when an atheist is presented to you, there isn’t this group institutionalized glue bringing you together: Atheists are free to think whatever they want, so there’s no predicting what an atheist will think or feel. There’s no puzzle piece that needs filling:

Instead, you’ll have to reveal your true self, and operate in a state of emotional vulnerability. It’s more difficult, because it’s real. There’s no dogma leading you down their garden path: You make your own path, and don’t know where it will lead ahead of time. It’s not MacDonald’s, it’s home-made and unknown.

Just a few different internet posts that brought me to a common understanding: I've been a free-thinking atheist all my life and I take it for granted and it seems like normal operating procedure to me: I require no crystal ball to tell me what the future will look like: I take it as it comes. Not scary to me.

But those who adhere to religious doctrine feel very insecure without the inflated tubes keeping the bowling balls out of the gutter.

In short, religous adults are playing emotional relationship gutter-ball.