Should We Respect Religion?

FI Oct-Nov 2006 Pages 8/25/06 8:49 AM Page 27 OP-ED we do not know. Our philosophy unites traditional avenues of church, pastoral, maximally toward disbelief. And that’s individuals who have held a wide vari- and sacramental care. In one sense, spir- OK too: it’s a real spiritual awakening. To ety of freethought perspectives along itual libertarians are unbelievers: they do the extent that this isn’t about God, exact- with those who consider themselves not believe in much, or any, religious ly, it looks like atheism. To the extent that spiritual.” dogma; they are not perplexed by theo- it’s about something that gives you a suit- If KtB and SOMA provide well-written logical controversies; their social ethics ably “lite” equivalent for the God you and thoughtful articles—whatever their are up for grabs or persuasion. But in don’t want, it’s spiritual. Religion meets merits as theology and philosophy— other respects, SLs believe too much. In South Beach. Universism offers only itself, the evolved their search for a meaning that “tran- The growth of SL must be taken seri- form of humanism, deism, and free- scends” the material and physical world, ously, because it may signal the growth of a thought, of which all previous examples they run the risk of transforming person- new kind of unreason of which fundamen- are incomplete and unworthy predeces- al experience into a kind of ego-mysti- talism is the blunt opposite. At the same sors. To understand Universism as the cism that equates the personal with the time, SLs should take seriously the real self-professed “fulfillment” of secularism transcendent. In this vaguely religious possibility that the growth of their move- with value-added spirituality is to under- universe, “God” by any name other than ment, like the growth of existentialism, will stand Islam in relation to Judaism and “God” is cynical, shares your sense of result in what Sartre predicted for his own Christianity. humor, is variously ironic and disapprov- philosophy: a cause so inclusive that it Is the growth of the SL movement a ing (like you) towards a world in which means what anybody wants it to mean, and good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing? humans only screw things up through thus means nothing at all. Reflect on the fact that it all boils down to war and poor planning, and would abol- you—your good or bad religious experi- ish religion if he wasn’t (like you) so R. Joseph Hoffmann is Chair of the ences, your gnawing search for meaning, darned nice. This God invites you to skep- Committee for the Scientific Examina- your inability to find relief through the ticism about his existence at a minimum, tion of Religion at CFI/Transnational. BARBARA SMOKER Should We Respect Religion? “Should we, then, respect religious faith? Certainly not. But n May 25, 2006, I took part in the should we respect religious Oxford University Union people? Yes—as long as they ODebate, opposing the motion that “Free speech should be moderated are not antisocial and do not by respect for religion.” The chief aim to impose their religious speaker on my side was Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who published views on others.” the controversial Muhammad cartoons. As there is a seven-figure bounty on his head, the security arrangements for the debate were heavy. Everyone was searched on the way in. In the days when, as president of the National speech should be moderated by respect Secular Society, I frequently took part for science”; and no reasonable person in university debates (mainly during If the word religion in the motion would vote for that—least of all a gen- the 1970s through the 1990s). I was were replaced by any other abstract uine scientist. So why is religion given almost invariably on the losing side noun, we would have won by 188 to nil. its uniquely privileged status? After when it came to the vote, but this time Suppose the word was science. The thousands of years, it is the norm—so we won by a good margin—129–59. motion would then have read “Free no one ever thinks it needs justifying. 27 http://www.secularhumanism.org October/November 2006 FI Oct-Nov 2006 Pages 8/25/06 8:50 AM Page 28 OP-ED murderers? They wouldn’t deserve speech is more important than respect. your respect, and most religions don’t Skepticism is of paramount impor- either. tance, because it is the gateway to Should we, then, respect religious knowledge; but unless the skeptical faith? Certainly not. But should we ideas are freely argued over, they can- respect religious people? Yes—as long not be assessed, nor can the ensuing “There can be no real as they are not antisocial and do not knowledge spread through society. freedom of religion aim to impose their religious views on There can be no real freedom of reli- others. gion without freedom from religion, without freedom from However, even if we respect them as which is part of the whole concept of good-living people, we cannot respect free speech. As J.S. Mill wrote, no idea religion, which is part of their beliefs. Faith, which means firm can be justified unless it is open to the whole concept of free belief in the absence of evidence, opposition—which means free speech betrays human intelligence, under- and free expression. And free speech speech. As J.S. Mill wrote, mines science-based knowledge, and must include the right to laugh at no idea can be justified compromises ordinary morality. If there absurd ideas. Indeed, ridicule—includ- were objective evidence for its doc- ing satirical cartoons—has always unless it is open to trines, it would no longer be faith; it been an important element of the free opposition—which would be knowledge. exchange of ideas on everything, not We have to excuse the medieval least religion. Without that free means free speech skeptics who pretended to respect exchange, there can be no advance in and free expression.” Christianity rather than risk being knowledge and no social progress. burned at the stake, and likewise the Totalitarian extremists, of whatever apostate Muslims of today who pay lip- religion or sect, invariably put faith service to Islam in those Islamic coun- first and freedom nowhere. Censorship, tries where apostasy is still a capital including insidious self-censorship, is offense; but we who live in a compara- then the order of the day, followed tively liberal society have no such closely by violence. In a society where As I pointed out in the debate, the excuse. In fact, it is all the more incum- religious orthodoxy rules, there is no precept to respect religion is similar to bent upon us to give our support to vic- freedom of religion. the Mosaic commandment, “Honor thy tims of religious oppression everywhere Incidentally, the violence provoked Father and thy Mother.” But suppose by coming out of the respectful closet by the Danish cartoons was deliberate- your father and mother happened to be and speaking our minds. Freedom of ly stirred up by Islamic extremists pub- lishing exaggerated versions of them in Muslim countries, up to four months after the originals were published. I have discussed this with several moderate Muslims, and while they roundly condemned the violent re- prisals, they generally added, “But people ought not to insult religion.” Why not? No one would denounce the ridi- culing of political views, which are open to free debate. In fact, true respect for religion would allow it to be opened up in the same way, relying on the truth emerging. But at present it is shielded from honest scrutiny. This sug- gests that the faithful realize it could not stand up to it. We are told by politicians and mealy- mouthed functionaries that it is political- ly incorrect to call the perpetrators of the July 7, 2005, bombings in London Muslim terrorists—but, of course, everyone knows they were Muslims, of the most zealous kind. Their belief in a blissful afterlife for martyrs is another aspect of the problem, and, since this afterlife free inquiry http://www.secularhumanism.org 28 FI Oct-Nov 2006 Pages 8/25/06 8:50 AM Page 29 OP-ED belief is unshakable, what we need perhaps We are told that Islam itself cannot is a revered ayatollah to proclaim, with be blamed for the terrorists’ attacks on Qur’anic support, that suicide bombers will New York, Madrid, and London, fol- actually go to hell (or, at least, that paradise lowed by widespread carnage in retali- has run out of virgins). ation for the publication of a few Though we must take care to avoid a innocuous drawings. That is like saying native backlash against the mostly that the horrors of the Inquisition had “. ridicule—including peaceable British Muslim community, nothing to do with Christianity. succeeding governments have carried In the Gospels, Jesus consistently satirical cartoons— the exoneration of Muslim villains too identifies righteousness with believing has always been an far in the past. For instance, as long ago in him; and in the ages of faith the state- as 1989, when imams were offering ment by Thomas Aquinas that “Unbelief important element of bribes on BBC television for the mur- is the greatest of sins” was incontro- der of Salman Rushdie, they were never vertible. Hence, the Inquisition, the the free exchange of charged with incitement to murder. Crusades, and the Christian burning of ideas on everything, The July 7 suicide bombers were witches, heretics, and Jews—the flames British-born Muslim youths, three of being fanned by Christian faith.

Load more