In Tony Blair’s England, there is a serious effort to criminalize criticism of religion. In theory, the object of this is to prevent, for example, Muslim clerics from calling for the extermination of Jews. In practice, however, the UK already has laws against the incitement of hatred and violence. The real, effective purpose of the new initiative is to make it impossible for secular critics to attack religion. New Labour, after all, is the UK’s answer to the DLC, cynically snuggling up to their own wingnuts.
The UK, however, is not alone. In the religious hothouse of the United States, similar forces are at work.
Over at dKos right now, there is an extended, far-ranging debate that essentially concerns whether non-religious people ought to be able to express their disagreement with and — heaven forfend! — contempt for religion.
I want to cut through the bullshit here and expose the hidden argument of the respect-for-religion crowd. What they imply, but seldom actually say, is that being religious is inherently superior than being non-religious, and that all of the blessings of moral society flow from religious belief.
I’ve even seen agnostics taken in by this nonsense. So have you, most likely. Is there anyone reading this who has not seen some non-religious person express admiration for religious people who can maintain the faith that they cannot, as if not being able to believe the unbelievable is some kind of personal shortcoming?
As it happens, I am religious in the sense that I believe in a supernatural or spiritual state of being. I am absolutely committed to people being able to choose their own beliefs based on whatever criteria they like, no matter how absurd I think they are. The only limitation I would like to impose on religion — aside from getting the freeloaders to pay taxes like any other business — is the common sense limitation that you ought not to be able to hurt or harrass people no matter what you think God is telling you to do.
In return, I expect that I should remain free to criticize religious beliefs like any other kind of ideology. I reserve the right to say that the Book of Genesis, read literally, is simply, factually, not true. I reserve the right to say that decent personal behavior is perfectly possible without religious morality, and as proof of that point to the vast population of non-religious people who are no more likely to murder or steal than religious people — and, let’s be really honest here, probably less likely to commit marital rape and child abuse than people whose religions tell them it’s okay to do so.
My experience is that organizations that prohibit criticism generally do so because their conduct warrants criticism. Given the history of organized religion, there is no question at all that religion warrants not only criticism but continuous scrutiny to prevent it from damaging society. The notion that it should be protected from that scrutiny is sufficiently outrageous that one has to wonder about the motives of the religious and political figures who want to erect that shield.
Religion has nothing to fear in the US or UK, or indeed throughout most of the western world. Unless, of course, it is the prospect of facing a free society in which they cannot force their views on others.
Respect should be earned. The surest sign that an institution does not deserve respect is when respect becomes mandatory.
