European Lawyer journal debates blasphemy law

In the current edition of The European Lawyer magazine, I argue against the new Irish blasphemy law and Thomas Byrne TD of the Oireachtas Justice Committee argues in favour of it. I am publishing the text of both articles here, and I will analyse the arguments made by Thomas Byrne TD in a separate post.

(The European Lawyer is the leading monthly magazine for the legal profession across Europe. Its subscribers – predominately senior private practice and in-house lawyers – are based in jurisdictions across the European continent as well as the UK and North America.)

This is the argument for the law:

Necessary modernisation

Thomas Byrne TD is a solicitor and a member of the Oireachtas Justice Committee

Long awaited reform and modernisation of defamation law in Ireland has unfortunately been overshadowed by ill informed and somewhat hysterical campaigning over the arcane issue of blasphemy libel.

The Defamation Act 2009 came into operation at the beginning of this year and introduces a modern statutory framework, providing for:

• comprehensive reform;
• statutory expression to developments in the jurisprudence of Irish courts, and elsewhere, including the European Court of Human Rights;
• respect for the necessary balance between the competing rights of freedom of expression (article 40.6.1 of the Irish Constitution) and of respect for ones good name and reputation. (article 40.3).

In completing the reform and modernisation of defamation law, the Minister for Justice had to consider the provision on blasphemous libel contained in section 13 of the old Defamation Act 1961. That section provided for the offence to be punishable by monetary and prison penalties (a term of up to two years’ imprisonment was possible). The section gave expression to article 40.6.1.i. of the Constitution, which is its only criminal offence provision, stating: ‘The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.’

This issue has onlv come to prominence in the context of the reform of Ireland’s defamation legislation. The minister had previously explained in some detail, both before the Oireachtas (the parliament) and in the media, the position in relation to the constitutional obligation involved here.

The Irish government was required to respect the provision of our constitution. Successive attorneys general advised that until the constitution is amended, by referendum of the Irish people, it is necessary that blasphemous libel remain a crime and that legislation must make provision for sanctions for this crime. Thus, to proceed with the reform of defamation law, it was necessary to address this issue.

At the Dail (the lower house of parliament) committee stage examination of the Defamation Bill last May, Justice Minister Dermot Ahern made it clear that (we as legislators do not have the luxury of pursuing a do-nothing approach while we wait for an opportune moment to move a constitutional amendment’. He set out all the relevant elements involved and drew particular attention to the nature of the constitutional obligation imposed.

The government’s preference, which I believe was widely supported, was to proceed with reform of defamation legislation rather than postpone it to await a possible referendum on blasphemous libel. I have expressed the hope that sanctions in regard to blasphemous libel will be little, if ever, a point of issue in the future. This was the case in the past under the provisions of the previous Defamation Act of 1961.

It is important to understand, despite claims to the contrary, that the provisions in the Defamation Act 2009 are not designed for the protection or promotion of any particular religion. I received no representations from any particular religion in regard to the drafting of those provisions.

Despite the criticism directed towards Mr Ahern by some, as a minister he is not in a position to advise anyone as to any potential breach of the law nor to offer a view as to any possible prosecution. Prosecution of criminal offences in Ireland is a matter solely for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions.

I hope that we will not have to wait a long time before a suitable occasion arises to put a proposal to the Irish people to delete the reference to blasphemy from our constitution. This course of action was proposed by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in July 2008, which suggested that we might avail of any appropriate opportunity in the future.

However, I am not necessarily convinced that a referendum needs to be held as a matter of urgency, given the other serious challenges facing our country. I should also point out that one should not anticipate a positive result in a referendum.

And this is the argument against the law:

Blaspheme and be damned

Michael Nugent is an Irish writer and chairperson of the advocacy group Atheist Ireland.

Why has the Irish Government introduced a medieval canon law offence into the criminal law of a modern pluralist democratic republic? Officially, it is because blasphemy is an offence under the Irish Constitution. But in 1999, the Supreme Court had found that the existing law was unenforceable, as blasphemy was not defined. However, between 1996 and 2008, four Constitution Review Committees had called for the deletion of religious references, including blasphemy, from the Constitution.

And in 2008, the Venice Commission, the body that advises the Council of Europe on constitutional matters, recommended that incitement to hatred, including religious hatred, should be a crime; that insult to religious feelings should not be a crime; and that the offence of blasphemy should be abolished (which is already the case in most European States) and should not be reintroduced.

In this context, nobody in Ireland expected the offence of blasphemy to survive the recent updating of the Defamation Act which contained it. The Justice Minister had three options: to leave the law as it was, to seek a referendum to remove blasphemy from the Constitution, or to make the law enforceable by defining blasphemy. He chose the third option. And so, for the first time, Ireland now has an enforceable blasphemy law.

This new law is both dangerous and silly. It incentivises religious outrage by making it the first test of blasphemy, in a Europe where cartoons or novels can trigger such harmful behaviour. The new law also treats religious beliefs as more valuable than secular, scientific or political beliefs. But the criminal law should protect people from harm, not ideas from criticism. In any case, we should be removing 1930s religious references from our Constitution, not legislating to enforce them. For example, you cannot become President or a Judge in Ireland without taking a religious oath.

Even if the Minister felt obliged to bring in a blasphemy law, he was certainly not obliged to bring in this particular one. It is too vague to enable citizens to regulate their conduct, and is discriminatory in its ambiguities. For example, what is “a substantial number of adherents” of a religion? If it is an actual number, it discriminates against smaller religions. If it is a proportion, it discriminates against larger religions.

In 2007, the English High Court held that it was the prevention of imminent public disorder that made the old English blasphemy law compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. But “causing outrage” is a far lower hurdle than the risk of public disorder. If the Irish Supreme Court were to use the same criteria as the English High Court, it could find this law unconstitutional.

The new law also discriminates against atheists. In 1999, the Irish Supreme Court said the old common law of blasphemy would have to be adapted to the circumstances of a modern State which guarantees freedom of conscience and of religion. The new law attempts to do this by redefining blasphemy as protection from outrage and extending such protection to citizens of any religion. However, it arbitrarily excludes such protection from citizens whose fundamental belief system is based on no religion.

Under political pressure, the Minister reduced the fine from €100,000 to €25,000 and introduced some safeguards that merely add more problems. The ‘genuine value’ defence shifts the burden of proof to the defendant in a criminal trial. And the exclusion of so-called ‘cults’ from being classified as religions is an arbitrary interference in the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and from discrimination.

The Minister just doesn’t get it. The problem with a blasphemy law in a modern republic is its existence, not its detail. On the day it became operational, Atheist Ireland published 25 blasphemous statements on our website. If we are prosecuted, we will challenge the constitutionality of the law. If we are not prosecuted, it strengthens the political case for the repeal of a law that serves no purpose.

Worryingly, this law is also harmful outside Ireland. In recent years, Islamic States have been trying to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level. Ireland has voted with our fellow EU States against this concept. Now Pakistan, on behalf of the Islamic States, has adopted the wording of the new Irish law to advance their agenda at UN level. This silly and dangerous Irish law will eventually be repealed. For everybody’s sake and for the reputation of Ireland, this should happen sooner rather than later.

As mentioned earlier, I will analyse the arguments made by Thomas Byrne TD in a separate post.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Hot Press tackles blasphemy law

Hot Press magazine has published a comprehensive feature on the new Irish blasphemy law. In it, Valerie Flynn argues that, in truth, Ireland’s ludicrous new blasphemy laws are no laughing matter and, what’s worse, there is now a move to get others to copy us!

2010: Yeah, it sounds like the future, but my hover skateboard and phaser gun seem to have gone missing! Instead, out here on the farthest, weirdest edge of Europe, we’re keeping things nice and retro in this sci-fi sounding year by reintroducing some Middle Ages-style blasphemy laws.

To quote: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000. He or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.”

Hot Press asked Michael Nugent, of campaigning secularist group Atheist Ireland, what he thinks of this absurd new addition to the Irish statute book.

“Well, there are two categories of concern. One is that it’s a silly law,” says Nugent. “Blasphemy is a theological concept and it shouldn’t have any place in the criminal law of a pluralistic country. When there are a number of religions it doesn’t make sense – any one religion’s stated beliefs are blasphemous to another religion’s stated beliefs.”

For example: in 2006 Pope Benedict XVI quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor – and caused quite a bit of offence – when he said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman.”

On January 1, Atheist Ireland marked the introduction of the new law by publishing this sentence on their website – one of 25 (arguably) ‘blasphemous’ quotations thus enshrined. Also on the list was “Actually, I’m a bit gay” – that one from ‘Jesus’ in Jerry Springer: The Opera. A law that criminalises that kind of joke sounds like a joke itself. But Irish Independent cartoonist Aongus Collins reckons there’s a real and serious dimension to the blasphemy law when it comes to freedom of speech.

Here’s why: the maximum fine for blaspheming is €25,000. The only possible defence, under the terms of the law, is that “a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.”

According to Collins: “The problem is that you have to defend yourself in court. A national broadcaster or a national newspaper will have a libel fund. But a small book publisher or a small magazine could be literally bankrupted because legal costs are so high in Ireland. What it does is that any small publisher of, say, [militant atheist] Richard Dawkins in Ireland would have to go to a barrister before publishing. It is intended to have a chilling effect on free speech.”

Collins believes that for non-mainstream publishers – bloggers, freelance journalists, left-field magazines, smaller or radical publishing houses – the new law, with its hefty fine, will be a meaningful and material inhibition to freedom of expression.

“I work for the Irish Independent, the Irish Times and the [Sunday] Tribune, but I got started working in smaller magazines like In Dublin. In the 1980s, I did a few cartoons that were a bit close to the bone in terms of the Catholic Church. I didn’t think twice in my 20s or 30s – but I would now. A small magazine would have to decide if it can afford to go to court.”

Another disturbing aspect of this law, and one that has been very much under-reported since the Bill was first announced last year, is the powers given to the Gardaí. Where a garda has reason to believe that copies of a “blasphemous statement” are to be found at a premises – including a dwelling – he or she is authorised, “if necessary by the use of reasonable force… to seize and remove any copies.”

“I’m a cartoonist and it’s very easy to offend, for example, Islam,” Aongus says. “The definition of blasphemy is so subjective. It’s carte blanche for some religious extremist to make a complaint to the guards. If they make a complaint, the guards can enter a business premises or even enter your house and grab all copies of this statement. So they could take your PC.”

For many Irish people, the blasphemy law seems like a depressingly familiar throwback to the days when Monty Python’s Life of Brian was banned. That’s not so far from living memory, kids – 1987 to be precise. But Michael Nugent believes we shouldn’t just look at this law just in the context of our own, fairly miserable, history of censorship and of the cultural dominance of the church. We should pay close attention to the international implications.

“At the UN for the last 10 years, the Islamic countries have been trying to make defamation of religion a crime and the western states, including Ireland, are opposing those attempts. But now they have the opportunity to say, ‘Here’s one of your own countries doing this’,” says Nugent.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – the collective body representing Muslim states – has already adopted the wording of Ireland’s blasphemy law for the purposes of lobbying the UN General Assembly to introduce an international treaty criminalising defamation of religion. Now there is a contribution to the campaign for Freedom of Ideas!

So you’re probably wondering why in the name of god (oops – blasphemy?) this law was enacted? It’s a bit of a mystery. Before news of the blasphemy Bill came out last year, Foreign Affairs Minister Mícheál Martin had been actively opposing the OIC’s attempts to have blasphemy declared a crime. Surprisingly, there is no evidence to suggest that the Catholic Church lobbied for this new law. Neither did the Protestant churches, nor the Islamic community in Ireland – although the latter subsequently welcomed it.

The official line from Justice Minister Dermot Ahern (he wasn’t available for interview) seems to be that his hands were tied: previously, blasphemy was prohibited by the Constitution but there was no corresponding crime on the statute books.

Fianna Fáil TD Seán Connick, convenor of the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, told Hot Press the Government had a choice between a referendum on the blasphemy provision in the Constitution and reform of the existing law. It was the Minister’s choice, and he went down the road of ‘reform’. Too much is being “read into” this piece of legislation, he added.

Connick denies the blasphemy law will stifle free speech, using as a (slightly mystifying) example, last year’s pseudo-scandal, Portraitgate – when a nudey picture of the Taoiseach was hung on the wall of the National Gallery. But RTÉ was pressurised into issuing a full apology for reporting that story. “What one person finds humorous, another person might find offensive,” responds Connick.

Words of wisdom indeed – which underline very well the dangerous side to this blasphemy law.

By all accounts, Dermot Ahern is highly conservative. He (in)famously spoke against the de-criminalisation of homosexuality in the Dáil in 1993 (“We have a duty to legislate for the standards and norms which we regard as appropriate for the Irish people.”) In light of this, some observers have speculated that the influence of hardcore Catholic organisation Opus Dei within the public service might have been a factor behind the blasphemy law. We are unlikely to find out.

Whatever the impetus, it’s pretty clear that anyone publishing or broadcasting in Ireland on the topic of religion is going to have this law at the back of their mind. Michael Nugent says most media organisations have shied away from printing the exact words of Atheist Ireland’s 25 ‘blasphemous’ quotations. And Hot Press has already spoken to one frequent participant on RTÉ’s The Panel, who said he was reminded to be aware of the new law – even before it was enacted on January 1.

So far, one month and two weeks into 2010, no one has yet been prosecuted yet for ‘grossly offending’ Jesus, Allah, Yahweh or any other deity. As they say in the clearly aberrant and thoroughly blasphemous Life of Brian: “Always look on the bright side of life.”

This article appeared in the Feb 3-24 print edition of Hot Press magazine. It is is online, along with further analysis of the blasphemy law, on the Hot Press website.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Blasphemy art exhibition in Dublin

The blasphemy exhibition in the Oonagh Young Gallery is on until Saturday 27 February, and is open from 12 to 6pm every Thursday, Friday and Saturday. It’s a fascinating show, and well worth a visit.

This Wednesday at 7pm there is a special screening of Rocky Road to Dublin and The Making of Rocky Road to Dublin, which should be watched by anyone interested in secularism and censorship in Ireland.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheist Conference in Denmark in June

I look forward to speaking at an international atheist conference titled “Gods & Politics” in Copenhagen, Denmark, from June 18-20, 2010.

It is the first Atheist Alliance International conference to be held in Europe, and is co-hosted by AAI and the Danish Atheist Society.

The venue is the Royal Danish Library also known as “The Black Diamond”.

It would be great if as many atheist activists as possible from Europe and beyond can attend this conference, as atheism is a concept that crosses national boundaries and we can all learn from each other and support each other in our advocacy work in our respective countries.

The full list of speakers is:
AC Grayling (UK)
Aroup Chatterjee (UK)
Brian Arly Jacobsen (DK)
Christer Sturmark (SE)
Dan Barker (US)
Gregory Paul (US)
Ivana Bacik (IRE)
Jens Morten Hansen (DK)
Lone Frank (DK)
Michael Nugent (IRE)
Mikael Rothstein (DK)
PZ Myers (US)
Paula Kirby (UK)
Per Bilde (DK)
Rebecca Goldstein (US)
Rebecca Watson (UK)
Richard Wiseman (UK)
Robin Ince (UK)
Simon Bressendorff (DK)
Taslima Nasrin (US)
Victor Stenger (US)

You can get further information at http://www.godsandpolitics.eu

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

PZ Myers in Dublin promotes Atheist Ireland

PZ Myers, biology professor and author of the science blog Pharyngula, promotes Atheist Ireland (and Guinness!) during his visit to Dublin.

(If you can’t see the video, go to this page.)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Debate – is God fraud?

I recently took part in a debate in University College Cork on the theme God is Fraud. You can see the contributions of the British humanist philosopher and author Peter Cave, and of the Irish religious correspondent and author TP O’Mahony, on the Atheist Ireland YouTube channel. Here is the text of my contribution:

Thank you for inviting me, and it is a pleasure to be here. I would like to start with a repudiation of Pascal’s wager by the great theologian Homer Simpson, who, when Marge was trying to get him to go to mass, replied “but what if we’ve picked the wrong religion? Every week we’re just making God madder and madder.”

I am going to suggest this evening that the ideas of God as an intervening personal supernatural being, and God as a moral guide and lawgiver, are both false. And I am going to suggest that the ideas of God as a personal commitment to unconditional love and goodness, and God as an impersonal force, are separate ideas that need to be disentangled from the first two false ideas.

God as a supernatural being

Let’s start with the false idea of God as an intervening supernatural being.

I’m including in this all of the supernatural claims attributed to God, from creating the world out of nothing, to impregnating a virgin in order to give birth to himself, to answering or ignoring millions of prayers every day, to turning pieces of bread and volumes of wine into his own body and blood every time a validly ordained priest of the human species on the planet Earth chooses to pronounce a certain set of words.

This type of thinking exists in the same intellectual realm as magic and superstition and witchcraft and sorcery. Last year the Pope announced a special promotional offer: if you visited Lourdes during 2008, you would get a free ‘plenary indulgence’ which would give you early release from a place called Purgatory after you die, and this would get you to a place called Heaven faster.

In any other field, making claims like this, particularly claims aimed at sick and vulnerable people, would be clearly seen as fraudulent. And I suggest that we should apply the same criteria to fraudulent claims about Gods.

God as a moral guide

Now let’s look at the second false idea, which is that of God as a moral guide

Wherever we get our morality, we do not get it from books like the Bible and the Koran, regardless of whether we read these books literally or metaphorically.

Here’s what happens what we read these books. When we see passages telling us that it is good to love your neighbour as yourself, and to be kind and forgiving to each other, or we read the story of the good Samaritan, we say: yes, those are morally good ideas.

When we see passages telling us that it is good to stone a man to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, or to stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night, or to kill Babylonian infants by dashing them against rocks, we say: no, those are morally bad ideas.

Let’s be clear about what is happening here. In each case, we are applying our own sense of morality to the passages that we read in this book, and not the other way around. At best, you can use the supposed words of God, to selectively vindicate your already-existing sense of right and wrong, but not to get your sense of right and wrong.

God as a personal commitment

Thirdly, I want to look at the idea of God as a personal commitment.

To contextualise this, in recent centuries, at least in the western world, science has weakened the idea of God as a supernatural being, and secular democracy has weakened the idea of God as a moral guide. And so today there is a greater emphasis on the idea of God as a personal commitment to universal values such as unconditional love and goodness, as reflected in ultimate reality.

This can be a useful belief. It can give a sense of meaning and hope. And it can lead to helpful behaviour such as people being kind to each other. But the problem is that this useful idea has become entangled with the first two false ideas of God. So, in order to manifest your personal commitment to unconditional love and goodness, you have to reconcile it with the creation myths and underdeveloped morality of Bronze Age and Iron Age tribes.

And so you end up with tragic situations like Mother Teresa, the world’s most famous closet atheist, who we now know spent the last fifty years of her life in continual inner torment because she did not believe in God, yet also fervently believed that she had to believe in God in order to manifest her personal commitment to unconditional love and goodness.

She wrote regularly to her superiors, asking them for advice, but all that they could tell her was to offer her spiritual dryness to God as a special gift. Whereas they could and should have been able to say: you know about Adam and Eve and the talking snake and the burning Bush and the flood, and how we now recognize that these are all only metaphors? Well, the same is true about God. God is also a metaphor. He doesn’t really exist. Now continue on with the good work that you are doing in helping sick and vulnerable people.

God as an impersonal force

Finally, I want to look at the idea of God as an impersonal force.

This is a very different idea to any of the first three ideas of God. At its broadest, this idea can be that the universe and the laws of nature are God. This idea is harmless in itself. But it creates an illusion that there is greater support for the idea of a personal God, because it uses the same label to describe a very different idea.

For example, surveys show that approximately nine in every ten Americans and Europeans believe in God. But when you go beneath this question, you find that only two thirds of Americans, and just over half of Europeans, believe in a personal God. So, for the sake of clarity, we should stop attaching the label God to the very different idea of an impersonal force.

Conclusion

I want to close by saying that I am not suggesting that people who believe in these ideas are themselves fraudulent. There is no doubt that the Bible itself has been deliberately and fraudulently altered over the centuries. There is even a word for this: pious fraud. But false ideas of God are usually spread more like a pyramid scheme, with innocent people unwittingly passing on false ideas to other innocent people.

However, underneath that, I want to make the following suggestion: if you make claims about the nature of reality, particularly if you make unlikely claims about the nature of reality; and if you encourage other people to change their behaviour, or indeed change their lives, based on those claims; then you take on the onus of proof that the claims can deliver what they are promising.

Otherwise, the claims are fraudulent. And so I second the motion that God is fraud.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheist Ireland radio interview

Earlier this week, I was a guest of Simon Maher (pictured here) on the Dublin radio station Phantom 105.2 FM, where we discussed atheism in Ireland, in the context of the UK atheist bus adverts, and the formation of the new advocacy group Atheist Ireland.

Here’s a recording of the interview, and a complete transcript.

Recording

You can listen to the interview here.

Atheists in Ireland

Simon Maher: We were talking last week about the atheist bus campaign in England, where there are advertising posters saying ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.’ And it got us talking generally about religion and atheism, and we said let’s try and apply it to an Irish context. And luckily enough there is a man called Michael Nugent who is a well known blogger at michaelnugent.com, where he writes about happiness, atheism and life, and a man who we’ve tallked to before here on Phantom Daily, and he joins us here in the studio. Good afternoon, Michael. Good to have you with us in the studio today.

Michael Nugent: Good afternoon. It’s nice to be here enjoying life and not worrying.

SM: Good. That’s a good start. I suppose the question we asked people when we talked about the feature last week was how the poster campaign might go down if it was to happen on buses trundling around the streets of Dublin?

MN: Well, I think there’s an awful lot of people in Ireland who aren’t particularly religious. We don’t go about shouting about it a lot, despite the temptation to do so given the way that non-religious people are treated by default here. But if you look at the last census, there are almost 190,000 people who said that they had no religion. And then there’s another 60,000 people who didn’t answer the question. So you have about a quarter of a million people who either said they have no religion or else didn’t answer the question. That’s quite a sizable minority.

SM: I was going to say, it is. A quarter of a million people in a population of 4.2 million or 4.3 million there or therabouts.

MN: Yes, technically, it’s the second largest grouping after Roman Catholics.

Atheists and Reason

SM: And when it comes to something like this, to give people a bit of background on atheism in general, its very much based on the idea of facts and evidence and reason, isn’t it?

MN: It is. Well, at it’s simplest, it’s either one or other of two things. It’s either saying that there’s no god, or else not saying that there is a god. And they’re both particularly unremarkable claims. You know, if I said that I don’t have five heads, it’s not a particularly remarkable thing to say. Equally, saying that there are no supernatural beings intervening in our lives and creating the universe, that isn’t particularly remarkable.

The default position is that rational thinking makes several things more likely. It makes enquiry more likely, in terms of trying to find out rationally what is true. It makes empathy more likely, in that people are going to treat each other as fellow human beings rather than being told what to do by deities, and it makes equality more likely, in that you’re going to have a secular society that’s based on respect for everybody rather than on rules that are handed down by a book that was written several thousand years ago.

SM: I don’t think anybody would disagree with any of that, but the idea of needing rational explanations for everything… you know, there’s a lot of things that go on in our lives. And we were talking before about the idea of love and marriage, which is probably one of the more irrational things that happen in our lives. Do we need a rational explanation for everything?

MN: It’s not so much that we need a rational explanation. It’s just that, whatever explanation that we come up with, we come up with by discussing it among ourselves. And we decide as natural beings, well, this is what love means to us, or this is what humour means to us… that’s all that it is, really. It’s not dictating what your ethics should be, or what love is. It’s just saying that it comes from within us, that it isn’t dictated to us by an imaginary being who wrote a book two thousand years ago.

The Atheist Bus Ads

SM: Right. And if we did see, let’s just say, the campaign that’s running now in the UK with ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.’ If those buses did start chugging down O’Connell Street, do you think that people would have a problem with the idea of it, or would have a problem with the wording of it?

MN: Well, I’ll put it to you this way. As you know, there is a complaint in England about it. If people did have a complaint about it on the basis that you can’t prove there is no god, they should equally have much more complaints with promotions of the idea that there is a god, because the evidence certainly, in all probability, is leaning towards there not being a god.

If you take for example, it’s not technically an ad, but last year there was an ad banned by the Advertising Standards Authurity for slimming pills. And it was banned on the basis that the company couldn’t substantiate its claim that it would soak up fat from your food, and so on. Now, the reason I remember that particularly is that, on the same day that ban was announced, the Pope was announcing an even more unsubstantiatable special offer, which was that if you visited Lourdes with a year, you would get time off from Purgatory, and you would get to Heaven earlier, when you die. Now, on any basis, those types of claims are far more unsubstantiatable than the unremarkable claim that the world is, broadly speaking, as it seems to be.

Atheists and Faith

SM: Right. And when it comes to atheism, and the idea of proving – and once again, we are back to our rationality once again – if in a hypothethical situation, someone was to come along and present evidence, that an atheist was to find convincing, of something, in this case, the existence of god… that’s a large part of atheism, that you’re willing to accept that evidence then.

MN: Sure. Exactly. And, you know, whatever is true is true. We don’t know what it is. We’re not claiming that we know certainly what it is. All that we’re saying is that, on the basis of the evidence we have so far, we’re living beings, that live in a natural world, that is part of a natural universe. And it is up to us to figure out the nature of the reality that we live in, and to figure out how best to live together, and how to treat each other, and how to be kind to each other, and to have a society built on those values.

SM: And when it comes to the idea, then, of faith, obviously people themselves have an idea, they have an notion in their head. And if they take comfort from the fact that they have faith or belief, they may not perhaps be able to rationally explain to you… is that something that is maybe missing from atheism? Or is it something of an alien concept to you, the idea that you have faith in something yet it doesn’t necessarily have a rational explanation.

MN: No. Well, you don’t necessarily have to be able to explain everything. You know, there’s nothing wrong with saying ‘I don’t know.’ I mean, we can’t know everything. There are things that, centuries ago, people didn’t know that we now know. And there are things that we don’t know now, that in a couple of centuries time, people will know. At any given time, there are things we don’t know. And some people, in any given generation, happen to call those things God, and say God did it.

Atheist Ireland

SM: Right. And you yourself, and some like-minded individuals, have now got involved in the Atheist Ireland project.

MN: Yes, it’s a group that we’ve started off with a meeting last month, and we’re going to be formally launching it soon. It arose out of a website called Atheist.ie, which is a discussion forum where people can discuss atheist related issues in Ireland. And we have now formally started an organisation called Atheist Ireland, and its aim… we have two aims. One is to promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism. And the second aim is to promote a rational, ethical and secular Ireland where the state does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.

And arising from that, the tpe of things we are going to be looking at initially are promoting a secular Irish Constitution… currently our Constitution starts off by saying that all authority comes from the Holy Trinity and that we humbly acknowledge our obligations to our Divine Lord Jesus Christ. I mean, it’s quite fine for people to do that, but it shouldn’t be in the Constitution.

And there are some extraordinary claims in the Constitution, such as ‘The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God’. That’s not actually a defence of the right of people to worship God. That’s a defence of the right of this God to be worshipped. We’re placing the rights of the Gods within our Constitution. And it may sound like it’s just picking holes, but there are cases where fundamental rights have been interpreted on the basis that we have a Christian Constitution, so they have to be interpreted that way.

So the Constitution is one thing, and the second main thing that we are looking at is the education system, and the need to have a secular education system where people can be taught rationally. And they can learn whatever religion that they want from their religions, but not from the education system.

Conclusion

SM: Very good. Well, if people want more details, they can go to the website, Atheist.ie.

MN: And they can get involved either in discussions, or indeed get involved in the preparations for the launch of the organisation, by going to Atheist.ie and just getting involved in the chat generally there.

SM: Michael, thanks very much for coming in and talking to us.

MN: Simon, you’re welcome.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheism as a Belief Part 1

As an atheist, I believe that atheism is a belief, or more accurately a set of related beliefs, and that it is not merely an absence of belief. This is the first in a series of articles in which I will tease out my thinking on this. I would welcome any feedback as I do so.

I realise that many atheists today choose to interpret the word “atheism” to mean simply a lack of belief that gods exist. This interpretation has its uses in, for example, shifting the burden of proof in debates.

But I believe that this is a mistake, both etymologically and practically. Here’s why.

The Label Suggests Belief

The idea that atheism is not a belief is based on breaking the word “atheism” into “a-” (meaning absence of) and “-theism” (meaning belief in a god). But that is not how the word evolved. The word “theism” did not exist when the word “atheism” entered the English language.

The word “atheism” began as “atheos” (meaning godless, in ancient Greek). The suffix “-ism” was later added onto it (or, technically, “-isme”, in French, before being translated into English). The correct breakdown is “athe-” (from godless) and “-ism” (meaning, broadly, a belief or a set of related beliefs about something).

Etymologically, atheism is a belief or set of related beliefs about godlessness or the absence of gods. It is the “-ism” of godlessness, not the “a-” of theism. That is why dictionaries typically define atheism as some variation of the belief that gods do not exist.

The Concept Suggests Belief

More importantly, the concept of atheism (the idea that the label points to) is in practical terms a belief system. Atheism exists within our minds, along with our other beliefs. If it was merely an absence of one belief, and nothing else, then in practical terms it would not exist or we would not be aware of it.

Once you are exposed to the idea that gods may or may not exist, you automatically form a belief about this. You either believe (on balance) that gods exist, or you believe (on balance) that gods do not exist, or theoretically you could believe that there is precisely a 50-50 chance of gods existing or not existing (which is itself a belief).

It is true that the atheist response, when exposed to this idea, involves an absence of believing that gods exist. But that does not mean that we also have an absence of any beliefs about the idea of the existence of gods.

Whatever each of us believes about whether or not gods exist, we believe that. It is merely a trick of language to suggest that our belief (whatever it is) is simply the absence of a different belief, and nothing else.

What do Atheists Believe?

Atheists differ in how we define our atheism, and each of these self-definitions is a reflection of our many individual beliefs. However, there are some beliefs that seem to follow neccessarily from the essence of atheism.

Here are three beliefs that I believe all atheists share. These beliefs can each be phrased negatively or positively, but they are in essence the same beliefs.

Atheists reject the idea that supernatural gods exist. Atheists believe that the idea of supernatural gods was invented by humans, and that it exists only as an imagined idea within the minds of some people.

Atheists reject the idea that supernatural gods reveal the nature of reality to human beings. Atheists believe that we as natural beings must discover for ourselves the nature of reality.

Atheists reject the idea that supernatural gods dictate our ethics or behaviour. Atheists believe that we as natural beings must decide ourselves how best to live together as fellow sentient beings.

Belief Does Not Mean Certainty

None of these beliefs implies certainty. It is impossible for anybody to be certain about anything. None of these beliefs even requires rational thinking, although rational thinking certainly leads to them more easily.

But they are beliefs, not merely the absence of beliefs, and I believe that they are the core beliefs at the essence of atheism. As I mentioned at the start of this post, I would welcome any feedback as I tease out my thinking on this.

 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheism as a positive belief

Atheism is a passive label for the basis of a positive, radical belief system: the assertion that reality is natural, and that we as natural beings are responsible for interpreting and governing our lives without being directed by imaginary supernatural beings.

Atheists believe that we live in a natural world, which is part of a natural universe, which may be part of a wider natural reality. And we believe that we, as natural thinking sentient beings, are responsible for discovering the nature of all of this reality, for forming ethical judgments and for governing our lives. As an important part of this belief system, we reject the idea that gods exist, but the core of our belief is the positive assertion that reality is natural.

As it happens, most but not all atheists also typically share some other beliefs and values. We usually believe in rational thinking, ethical behaviour and secular government. So, in practice, this is an extra set of secondary beliefs that most but not all atheists can also unite around. But the core belief that we all share is that reality is natural, and free from supernatural direction.

The Label Atheism

For whatever historical reasons, the word ‘atheism’ happens to be the label that has become most associated with this particular view of the world. Etymologically, the label ‘atheism’ seems to be passive (it derives from the Greek ‘atheos’, meaning ungodly). But the concept that the label points to is a positive naturalistic belief system.

The belief that reality is natural, and that we as thinking sentient beings are responsible for discovering the nature of this reality and forming ethical judgments and governing our lives, is not an added set of positive beliefs, separate from the absence of a belief in gods. Instead, these positive beliefs are at the core of the concept labelled ‘atheism’.

The passive etymology of the label is a distraction. Many passive labels also describe positive concepts. The label ‘freedom’ means not being coerced, but the positive concept that it describes is the ability to make our own choices. Fearless people are brave. Nonsectarian people are tolerant. Blameless people are innocent. Nongovernmental groups are independent. And atheists believe that reality is natural.

Using Other Labels

Historically, many atheists have tried to address this issue by adopting labels that sound more positive than the label ‘atheism’. We can call ourselves humanists, rationalists, secularists, freethinkers and a host of other names. All of these labels serve useful purposes, and there are times when I would describe myself in each of these terms.

But none of these labels capture the core, the essence, of the radical belief system that we share, as effectively as the word ‘atheist’ does. For whatever historical reasons, ‘atheism’ happens to be the label that has become most associated with our core beliefs. So, in practice, choosing not to use the label serves to marginalise the concept.

We may choose to use another label, because we are uncomfortable with the label atheist. But, to others, what comes across is that we are uncomfortable with the concept of atheism. Or we may choose to define atheism as a passive absence-of-belief, because it puts the onus of proof on theists in debates. Which is tactically useful in certain circumstances.

Using the Label Atheist

Instead, I believe that we should use the label atheist with integrity and pride. We should seek to reframe it as the positive, radical belief system that it represents. And we should assertively challenge theists whenever they use the idea of gods to dictate how we live our lives.

As atheists, we can and should campaign on such issues as rational thinking, ethical behaviour and secular government. We should do this as individuals, as groups of atheists, and as part of wider campaigns that include people with any beliefs about gods.

But it is only by adopting the label atheist, with integrity and pride, that we can also promote our radical core belief: that reality is natural, and that we as natural beings are responsible for interpreting and governing our own lives without being directed by imaginary supernatural beings.

Photo: In Celebration by Midirisyu (cc)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheist and humanist groups

How do Atheist groups differ from Humanist groups? And how can we best work together to promote a rational, ethical and secular society?

This article examines the aims of American Atheists, Atheist Alliance International, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and ten Atheist or Humanist groups in various countries around the world, and concludes:

(1) The labels are unimportant in themselves. Most atheists and most humanists share most of the same fundamental beliefs and values. We reject the idea that gods exist and all that follows from that idea, and we usually support rational enquiry into the nature of reality, mutual empathy as the basis of ethical relations, and secular equality as the basis of civic government.

(2) The labels are useful in practice. They enable independently-minded people to socialise and bond together using whatever self-description that we each feel most comfortable with, and whatever nuances of emphasis that we each prefer. They can also enable us to promote our aims using whatever label we feel is most useful in different circumstances, whether that be atheist, humanist, secularist, rationalist, skeptical or freethought. 

(3) If we are to achieve a rational, ethical, secular society, then all people and groups who reject the idea that gods exist should work together, in a series of shifting alliances, on a series of issue-based campaigns and projects, at whatever level of involvement we feel most comfortable. We should find ways to use our differences in emphasis to jointly promote our shared aims.

In this article, I examine: What is atheism? What is humanism? How do atheism and humanism differ? What do Atheist groups want? What do Humanist groups want? How do Atheist and Humanist groups differ? And how can we best work together to promote a rational, ethical, secular society?

1. What is Atheism?

Many people define atheism in different ways, but all atheists reject the idea that gods exist. Some people define weak atheists as people who lack a belief that gods exist, and strong atheists as people who have a belief that gods do not exist. Some people define agnosticism as a subset of atheism, because agnostics lack a belief that gods exist. And some pragmatic atheists simply ignore the idea of gods as being in practice irrelevant to their lives.

But how do active atheists define themselves? American Atheists, which was founded in 1963, is an umbrella network for over sixty affiliated Atheist groups. It grew out of two legal cases related to separation of church and state. In those cases, they defined Atheism as including: “An Atheist seeks to know his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death… He wants an ethical way of life… He believes that we are our brothers’ keepers, and are keepers of our own lives, that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

Atheist Alliance International, which was founded in 1991, is another umbrella network for almost sixty Atheist groups, most in the United States and the rest in ten other countries. Atheist Alliance International promotes these beliefs and values: (1) Atheism is living one’s life without the supernatural. (2) Every human being is entitled to freedom of conscience. (3) Scientific inquiry has proved the best process for improving the physical welfare of humankind. (4) Human compassion and empathy are crucial to improving the human condition. (5) Reason and cooperation are essential to meeting the challenges that confront humankind. (6) We are responsible for humane interaction with other animals and for the preservation of our habitable planet. (7) Humanistic atheists work toward fostering cooperative diversity among humans.

2. What is Humanism?

Many people define humanism in different ways, and some may call themselves secular humanists or even religious humanists. The International Humanist and Ethical Union, which was founded in 1952, promotes one set of widely accepted definitions. The IHEU brings together over 100 Humanist and related groups in more than 40 countries. (The IHEU call their life-stance Humanist, with a capital H and no qualifying adjectives. I follow this custom in this article.)

All member groups of the IHEU must agree this minimum statement: “Humanism is a democratic and ethical life-stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.”

In Amsterdam in 2002, the IHEU adopted these points as defining world Humanism: (1) Humanism is ethical. (2) Humanism is rational. (3) Humanism supports democracy and human rights. (4) Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. (5) Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. (6) Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. (7) Humanism is a life stance aiming at the maximum possible fulfillment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living.

3. How do Atheism and Humanism differ?

Technically, Humanists include some but not all atheists. Some people say atheism is simply the absence of a belief in gods, while Humanism is a specific naturalistic life-stance. (Humanists coined the word life-stance to describe a person’s relationship with whatever they accept as being of ultimate importance. The word life-stance can be applied, neutrally, to religion and alternatives to religion). So let us examine this proposition.

In reality, atheism is more than simply the absence of a belief in gods. If you reject the idea that gods exist, you automatically also reject the ideas that gods are responsible for revealing truths about reality, or creating ethical judgments, or governing our lives. So you automatically accept that we as humans are responsible for self-determining these aspects of our lives. This is not an added positive belief, separate from atheism: it is a necessary part of atheism to automatically adopt a positive naturalistic life-stance.

What, then, of the specific principles of the life-stance labelled Humanist? For most atheists, they are simply the type of principles that flow naturally from the type of thinking that led us to atheism in the first place: rational enquiry into the nature of reality, mutual empathy as the basis of ethical relations, and secular equality as the basis of civic government. The life-stance of most atheists is broadly the same as the life-stance of most Humanists.

Atheism and Humanism are, therefore, in most cases, two different labels for the same thing: rejecting the idea that gods exist and adopting broadly the same naturalistic life-stance under one or other label. So why do some people prefer one label over the other? Is it merely because of the etymology of the labels? Or is there a serious difference of emphasis? To examine this further, let’s look at the aims of ten sample groups in different countries.

4. What do Atheist groups want?

Explicitly ‘Atheist’ groups share a broadly similar core of aims, adapted to local circumstances. As one example of the many such groups in the USA, the Atheist Coalition of San Diego has these aims: (1) To keep a firm, tall, and wide wall separating church and state. (2) To promote atheism as a worthwhile and wholesome point of view. (3) To promote science literacy.

The IBKA in Germany has these aims: (1) To represent the political interests of non-religious, agnostics and atheists. (2) To support human rights, rational thinking, individual self-determination and tolerance. (3) To support the separation of church and state. (4) To criticize religion as an ideology, and the socio-political role of the churches.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has these aims: (1) To encourage informed free-thought on philosophical and social issues. (2) To safeguard the rights of all non-religious people. (3) To serve as a focal point for the fellowship of non-religious people. (4) To offer reliable information in place of superstition and to offer the methodology of reason in place of faith. (5) To promote atheism.

Atheist Centre in India has two broad sets of aims: (1) To counsel victims of, and to challenge, issues such as the untouchability and caste systems, superstitions, witchcraft and sorcery. (2) To promote issues such as science, ecology, environment, social cohesion, sex education, family planning, and secular and humanist education, art and culture.

The Atheist Association of Finland has these aims: (1) To protect the legal and cultural interests of atheists. (2) To separate the state from both state churches. (3) To enlighten and educate citizens. (4) To promote freedom of atheism, religion, belief and civil rights. (5) To promote secular and atheistic culture. (6) To investigate scientific atheism.

5. What do Humanist groups want?

Explicitly ‘Humanist’ groups also share a broadly similar core of aims, again adapted to local circumstances. The American Humanist Association has these aims: (1) To be a clear, democratic voice for Humanism. (2) To increase public awareness and acceptance of Humanism. (3) To establish, protect and promote the position of Humanists in society. (4) To develop and advance Humanist thought and action.

The Society for Humanism Nepal has these aims: (1) A rational society wherein all enjoy equal status as human beings. (2) To influence people from all walks of life. (3) To promote a scientific way of life. (4) To promote democracy and justice with a Humanist bias. (5) To promote Humanistic ethical practices. (6) To raise awareness about human obligation.

The Humanist Society of South Australia has these aims: (1) To promote a Humanist approach to personal living and society. (2) To facilitate Humanist interaction and communication. (3) To lobby State and Federal Governments about important issues of the day. (4) To tackle issues on which politicians have a “conscience vote”. (5) To hold social events and outings.

The British Humanist Association has these aims: (1) To promote Humanism. (2) To support and represent people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. (3) To work for an open and inclusive society with freedom of belief and speech. (4) To work for an end to the privileged position of religion – and Christianity in particular – in society.

The Nigerian Humanist Movement has these aims: (1) A rational, constructive approach to human affairs. (2) To offer a positive alternative to all religious and dogmatic creeds. (3) To uphold and defend the human rights of Humanists and of the general public. (4) To improve social conditions. (5) To support the widest conception of education and enlightenment.

6. How do Atheist and Humanist groups differ?

Most Atheist and Humanist groups share broadly the same fundamental aims, though each group phrases them differently. They usually support rational enquiry into the nature of reality, mutual empathy as the basis of ethical relations, and secular equality as the basis of civic government. And they usually campaign to promote these aims within society.

There are some differences in emphasis. Some groups that label themselves as Atheist can be more assertive in how they campaign, and less deterred by how others might perceive the word atheist. Some groups that label themselves as Humanist can be more focused on creating a common Humanist identity as an alternative to religion, and may conduct secular services for weddings, baby-naming and funerals.

But these differences in emphasis do not depend on the labels. Any of the above groups could conduct their activities with integrity under the label Atheist or Humanist, or indeed Secularist, Rationalist, Skeptical, Freethought or Freedom from Religion. In practice, the labels and activities of each group reflect the diversity of personalities and self-definitions among independent thinkers, and the historical and social circumstances in which each group operates. 

For example, Britain has three main national groups that have been active since Victorian times. The National Secular Society, founded in 1866, campaigns against religious influence in government, education and public life. The British Humanist Association, founded in 1896, campaigns on the same issues, and also conducts secular funerals, weddings and baby-namings. The Rationalist Association, founded in 1899, supports and promotes humanism and rational enquiry and opposes religious dogma, primarily through publishing. 

In other countries, similar groups were formed in different times, in different circumstances, and with different labels. However, while the labels are unimportant in themselves, they are useful in practice. They enable independently-minded people to socialise and bond together using whatever self-description that we each feel most comfortable with, and whatever nuances of emphasis that we each prefer. And they can enable us to work together on shared aims, using whatever label they feel is most useful in different circumstances.

7. How can we best work together?

Here are ten things that people who reject the idea that gods exist can do together to promote a rational, ethical and secular society, whether or not we choose to join an organised group. Naturally, as we are independently-minded people, each of us will do only whatever combination of these things that we feel comfortable with. But we should find ways to use our differences in emphasis to jointly promote our shared aims.

1. Act as an individual to support relevant groups and campaigns.

2. Join any group or groups that reflect your own preferred self-description.

3. Establish a new group or groups with like-minded people. The group can be based on a shared geographic area, or a shared interest in a specific topic.

4. Don’t try to represent all of the people who reject the idea that gods exist. Just set a specific set of aims for your group, and work to promote those specific aims.

5. Keep the aims and structure simple. Keep the focus outward, on promoting your aims within society. Encourage initiative and avoid complicated approval procedures for activities.

6. Build alliances of small autonomous groups, if necessary with with overlapping memberships. If a group gets too big to function effectively, split it into two groups. Join relevant umbrella networks, whatever label they may use.

7. Respond to relevant issues as they arise. Write to or telephone the media. Question politicians and institutions. Discuss topical issues with friends and colleagues.

8. Run specific pro-active campaigns or projects on specific issues. Each campaign or project can be jointly organised by any combination of groups and or individuals.

9. Brand each campaign or project distinctly, so that it can be supported by people who may not agree on other issues that are distinct from that specific campaign. Have specific, measurable and achievable goals. Keep your focus on a manageable number of projects at a time.

10. Each campaign or project could focus on one specific aspect of: (a) promoting scientific enquiry and challenging dogmatic creeds about the nature of reality; (b) promoting mutual empathy and challenging supernatural commands as the basis of ethical relations; or (c) promoting secular equality and challenging religious control as the basis of civic society.

Image: Godless Americans March on Washington by Anosmia (cc)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Why atheism is important

The idea of gods is bad for society, because it spreads irrational dogma that causes good people to do bad things. This affects three practical areas of our lives: the quest for knowledge, treating people fairly, and civic society.

Rational thinking makes the following more likely: Enquiry: an ongoing unbiased quest for knowledge and truth. Empathy: adult ethics, based on relating to other living beings. Equality: a secular society that protects everybody’s rights.

And irrational dogma makes the following more likely: Creeds: accepting, as truth, imaginary answers to big questions. Commands: childish ethics, based on orders, desire and fear. Control: unjust laws that are influenced by religious dogma.

Enquiry vs Creeds

Nearly four thousand years ago, a man gazed inquisitively at the night sky over what is today near Baghdad, and he started to record the movement of the stars. This scientific breakthrough was used to create omens, such as: ‘If in month one the Demon with the Gaping Mouth rises heliacally, for five years there will be plague, but it will not affect cattle’. Today NASA has mapped the oldest lights in the universe, the ancient Babylonian omens have evolved into vacuous horoscopes, and religions have embedded gods into seasonal celebrations of nature.

Throughout time, this is the pattern of the quest for knowledge. Inquisitive and rational thinking has steadily helped us to understand more about how nature works – the latest major breakthrough being the map of the human genome, the ‘book of life’ which will dramatically improve healthcare – while superstitious and dogmatic thinking has hindered and corrupted this quest for knowledge, by teaching imaginary answers instead of seeking the truth, with the odd stoning to death or roasting alive thrown in for people who dared to disagree.

Empathy vs Commands

When I was five, I knew that I had to be good coming up to Christmas because Santa Claus was looking down from the North Pole and judging the behaviour of every child in the world. For many adults today, an imaginary creator of the universe has taken over Santa’s job – God’s making a list, he’s checking it twice; he’s going to find out who’s naughty or nice – except this time, instead of a present or an empty stocking, you get the bliss of paradise or the torment of hell, for eternity, after you die.

Throughout time, religious belief has corrupted our morality, by extending childish thinking into adulthood. The reason that we should be fair to other people, and to all sentient beings, is because we relate to them as fellow living beings. This is known as the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. It is common to atheists, agnostics and theists alike. It requires no belief in gods, particularly gods that boast of drowning every living being in the world except the passengers on an ark.

Equality vs Control

In Ireland in 2007, an advert for slimming pills was banned because the company could not substantiate its implausible claim to ‘soak up’ fat from your food. This is how society protects vulnerable people from being conned. In the same week, the Pope announced an even more unsustainable special offer: if you visited Lourdes within a year, you would get a free ‘plenary indulgence’ and early release from Purgatory after you die, thus getting you to Heaven faster. But there was no legal mechanism to protect vulnerable people from being conned by this claim.

Throughout time, religious leaders have influenced the law and culture of civic society. Today, many States officially protect, subsidise, encourage or even enforce religious dogma at the expense of the rights of their citizens. In recent years, Islamic States have sentenced homosexuals to death and a female rape victim to be lashed. More subtly, an atheist would be almost unelectable as President of America. In a State that respects everybody’s rights, government should be secular, culture should be pluralist, and beliefs should be personal.

Image: Pantheon of Gods by Grizzli (cc)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!