Sunday, October 22, 2006

Why an Athesist Cares about Religion

I saw this video on YouTube just today on why Atheists and Agnostics should start keeping track of what is going on in the religious world. We are seeing people of religion influencing what others can or can't do. I ask you, who is it in the States are against stem cell research? Where does Conservative party in the States get a significant support from? Who is against the teaching of evolution in school? What significant faction opposes same sex marriage?

The point of these questions is not whether if they are correct or not, but it is important to realize that there is an institution behind this... and I'm afraid that this institution is not entirely backed up by rational thought. It's time to name names here and now, a considerable amount of policies are being driven into politics by Christian organizations.

I am not characteristically against religious organizations; I am more than happy to co-exist with the beliefs of others-- my friends can go ahead and pray before eating a meal, tell me that you can't eat pork or beef, whatever, it doesn't bother me. I have plenty of friends of different religious backgrounds. In Canada, I have Christian, Hindu and Islamic friends. We get along fine; it's not like we go jihadic when we sit down together for lunch. Unfortunately, there are groups of people that do not think that way and these groups have the influence to change the laws that affect people that aren't of their religious denomination. Is that right? I don't think so.

"Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power." -- President Clinton, interview on Fox News after he smacks down Chris Wallace (the host) down for partisan questioning (an interview very much worth watching by the way).

Since when do Christian (or other religious) groups have the right to impose their way of thinking on to other people? We have a group of people telling others what is right or wrong and trying to legislate that into law. This is a different ball game because there are active groups of people out there affecting the way other people go about their lives, especially when the affected group isn't doing anything to affect the active group's way of life.

Why should being Islamic threaten Christians? Is it right to for say Christians to legislate a ban on Islamic religion (even as a way of life)? Suppose even that Christians held a majority and "democratically" had the power to do this sort of thing, does is make it right still? No! And that is why democracy is just as much about minority rights as it is about majority rights. Because in the big picture of the world, we are all minorities. There are more non-Christians in the world than there are Christians and simply by majority rule it would be just as fair to legislate against them. But oh wait, the world is divided into countries and such, but the idea is still just as valid.

Religious group's have an asymmetric way of interacting with broader society; for example what if I made a deal to allow a religious organization to have their way with no stem cell research, but I want religious related activities in schools banned because, say other people might find it offensive.

You know what? There is no way that is going to happen. I've never seen any religious organizations make any concessions because they believe they are right and they want it their way. And the only time I've seen religious discourse happen is when they want to come talk to you and persuade you to let them have their way.

That's the asymmetry. If you have the right to change the way other people go about their lives, then others should have the right to influence the way you go about your life. This of course is an idealistic way of thinking-- in the sense that we live by fair rules (ie. what you can do, I can do). The reality is that the world isn't 100% fair, but we try to live by these ideals. If we don't, then all bets are off and everyone is going to be as unfair as possible to get their way... and you know what? That's also "fair" in a perverse kind of way... but this system would still be moral, in a different way where I described in a post I made more than a year ago. Summary point, Christian groups should also be willing to accept the influence of other groups if you are going to try and influence how others should be. As of this writing, I have yet to find much evidence of this happening.

I am sure that you and I can predict the headlines in the news if I actually made a deal as a above: "I'll let you have your way with no stem cell research, but I want religious activities in schools banned." We'd all hear how this would be called "religious discrimination," fine, so what do you call it and a religion discriminates against other people? So what about people or ideas not related to religion but challenged by religious groups? "Persecuted by religion?" I don't think we have a formal term to describe this and I think this is the problem--the problem is that a set of phrases don't exist to describe this persecution of ideas by religion. If a problem cannot be well defined, you're not going to have a very good chance of any sort of logical discourse (assuming that "logic" is a valid school of thought for this kind of "discourse"). But it's time to start the discourse because religious tolerance is coming to an end and ironically we are starting to see that it is those that are religious that are intolerant. I cannot tolerate the intolerant.

It might seem that I'm hitting hard at Christians, but that was not the point of this essay. I don't harbour any hate of them-- it so happens to be what I am the most versed in terms of what is going on, but the argument can be extended to other religions. If that is one things you should walk away from this, it is the broader picture of implications.

I am agnostic out of politeness (agnostic being that I have no belief or disbelief of supernatural religions) because I believe it's fine for people to believe anything they want so long as they are civil. I even entertain religious conversation and was perfectly fine with people telling me that they're happy to be religious. I've got no problem with people being happy, but when the things they do starts causing trouble to other people, it's time to take a look at what's going on and I mean so in a rational kind of way. Unfortunately, rationality and religion doesn't seem to co-exist and I have to make a stand for it and many others are starting to do likewise.

Religious and world peace is possible-- I've lived in an international dorm.

2 comments:

yuti said...

I'm Christian but I object to some of the political objectives of the Christians in the US. What I believe is most important is freedom of conscience - the right to believe anything you want (of course, with a baseline moral standard to which all are held accountable).

Religion and rationality do coexist. The problem arises when people use it to claim superiority above others (which tends to be human nature). I wouldn't hold rationalism as the gold standard, because rationalism has its limits. For example, the Prisoner's Dilemma. Faith is not the antithesis of rationalism, but rather a way to overcome its limits in striving for a complete world view. Of course, I view my faith as much more than that, but I'm just trying to provide a counter-argument for your post. You can thank law school for that little spiel.

One more thing: the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution expressly forbids the government from endorsing a particular religion. I don't think Bush has ever read the darn thing.

Paladiamors said...

Yuti,

much appreciated for the comment. I agree with you on the part of freedom of belief so long it is not in a position to be imposed on other people-- people do the choosing on what they believe, not the system. There are of course the caveat such that the beliefs of one person does not unsolicitedly negatively impacts another person, but this should be obvious.

The problem illustrated by the video is an indication on how religion in the State is becoming prominent in legislation. The US original constitution explicitly states that the country is not fundamentally Christian, the words "in God we trust" on American coins was added in the last 50 years, there is further information in the video.

Radrex,

There likely exists a silent tolerant majority, I have no qualms with them. However it is the smaller (if indeed, "smaller") louder minority lobbying people within the governments and politicians doing things for votes that is reason for concern. Either way, large or small groups should not have the right to trample over others.

Suppose more people like beef than more pork. Still, pork shouldn't be voted off the menu... even if it was the other way around. Majority rule and minority rights.

It would be just as wrong for people of other religious denominations with large enough support to lobby for privileges for or against their or other groups, or even certain ways of thinking.

If freedom of speech should be protected, so should thought and way of life. Included in this should also be the protection of individual rights to sanctity. All of these should simultaneously be respected. Right now, this isn't the case.