Forward progress is what’s at stake in debate over secularism versus religion
IS THE BID FOR a more secular society – the way things are drifting here – an attack on religion?
Some, especially the whack-a-doodles in the U.S. political scene, say yes. Granting same-sex partners the right to marry, for example, is an assault on religious liberty.
That stance is seen in Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz’s exchange with actress Ellen Page, herself recently out, over the persecution of gays in the workplace.
Rather than treating it for what it is, a human rights issue, Cruz immediately took the criticism as an attack on religious liberties.
“Well, what we’re seeing right now, we’re seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted for living according to their faith,” he responded while campaigning in Iowa.
“I’m a Christian and scripture commands Christians to love everybody,” he said in an interview afterwards. “This is about whether the government is going to persecute people of faith for standing up to their faith.
“And what we’re seeing right now is this liberal fascism and intolerance. Their object is to persecute, to punish, to fine any Bible-following Christian or believer that believes in the biblical definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. There are some activists who, frankly, manifest a hatred and intolerance for Christians, who are persecuting Christians.”
That take on the human rights debate, indeed the Cruz incident itself, was fodder for Lawrence Krauss’ presentation at a secular conference in Kitchener last weekend.
Krauss makes the distinction between the right to hold beliefs – that is indisputable – and respecting the actual beliefs. Likewise, you are free to hold any belief you want, but you aren’t free to act on it if in so doing you infringe on the rights of others.
Take racism, for instance. Each of us is free to think what we want about other races. None of us in this country is allowed to treat others differently when it comes to hiring practices, for instance.
We discourage racism, sexism, homophobia and the like because acting on such beliefs is harmful to others. Ideally, the beliefs themselves are abandoned, but the laws simply prevent people with those beliefs from doing harm. Well, for the most part, as it would be naive to assume that no one is ever subjected to such discrimination.
Given the topic of his discussion, militant atheism and science, Krauss’ stance is clear.
“One might rationally argue that individual human beings should be free to choose what moral behavior they approve of, and which they don’t, subject to the constraints of the law. But when organized religious groups gain power of any form, power over the state, power over women, or power over children, the results inevitably lead to restrictions on liberty based on discrimination,” he says.
A physicist and cosmologist – Krauss is foundation professor and director of the Arizona State University Origins Project – Krauss fields criticisms from fellow scientists for his outspoken atheism. Just ignore religion – which is what most scientists do in their work, and what most of us do in our lives, too – rather than antagonize believers, they say.
Doing so would be hypocritical, he maintains.
“Religion is anathema to science,” he tells the audience of some 300 people gathered at the conference in Kitchener August 22.
Allowing religion to have a say in policy, rather than being held as a private belief, only gives credence to it, he suggests. A problem in the U.S., the interjection of “religious nonsense” in other countries leads to real atrocities, not just heated debate. Here, we can lead by example in making sure dogma has no part in how we structure our society.
Unlike Cruz and his ilk, Krauss does not equate the separation of church and state with an attack on religion.
Still, he’s no fan of religion getting in the way of knowledge. Supporters of creationism and its getaround-the-law version, intelligent design, do much to hinder education. Even amongst the crowd of non-believers, Krauss raised a few eyebrows by calling such teachings paramount to child abuse, a shock-value comment he’s made before, but one that shows the slippery slope from indoctrinating young children, to offering up prayer instead of medical care, to something like “honour” killings.
Many secularists, including scientists, shy away from criticism so as not to give offense. That may serve only to encourage “nonsensical beliefs.”
“We should ridicule stupid ideas,” he says, a sentiment that applies to more than religion. “We do a disservice when we ... fake respect for nonsensical belief.”
Nor should we defer to “authority,” church or otherwise.
“We owe it to our children to foster doubt. Don’t worry about giving offence.”
In an overly politically correct environment, even asking questions is discouraged, eventually even prohibited.
“Questioning itself becomes socially taboo,” he argues of fostering an environment where we can’t challenge ideas.
We’re seeing some of that already in areas beyond religion. Certainly that’s at play in the current federal election campaign, as we’ve seen countless examples of the Conservative government’s attempt to stifle debate – Krauss drew a rousing cheer for the suggestion to speak out against Harper’s bid to
control and censor scientists, part of an ongoing attempt to smother knowledge and keep the public in the dark.
A prolific writer of books and columns, he’s none too impressed with the lack of debate and aversion to such topics in the mainstream media – “self-censorship destroys a free press, the basis of democracy.”
Open discourse, doubt and inquiring minds are what encourage human development and progress, he maintains. And it’s hard to argue against how far we’ve come with that attitude. Harder still to argue in favour of anyone or anything looking to push us in the opposite direction.