Criticising religion

Why not just stand up for secularism? This was the theme of a talk by Atheist Alliance International’s Russel Blackford, which can be accessed on the net from embiggenbooks.com. The question asks why we should criticise religion rather than just promote the benefits of secularism.

The short answer given by Blackford is that if religion is not challenged in society, there will be no traction for ideas of freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion. If everyone just accepts that religion has epistemic and moral authority, it may be wondered, then, why we should ever be free from it. Many religious people and organisations refuse to accept the logic of secularism, that it’s not okay for them to try to convince government to impose their dogmas. History has shown that for our safety from religion, we must be able to criticise it. Blackford then delves into the past to illustrate his point.

Over time, Christianity went from being a persecuted religion to a persecuting one, destroying Jewish synagogues and pagan temples, and attacking any type of Christianity that did not conform to orthodoxy. Eventually, Martin Luther’s actions lead to a protestant movement that the orthodoxy could not put down. Millions died throughout Europe in religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, including millions in France alone during the 30 Years War.

The religious connection was a huge part of what was happening on the European political scene, even if the wars were not religious per se. Part of the reason the Acadians were deported starting in 1755 was they wouldn’t abandon Catholicism, which made them suspect in the eyes of British authorities.

By the 17th century, philosophers were seriously examining the matter of state and religion. In 1689, John Locke noted that much of the struggle is caused by religion trying to take over civil power. If civil government could simply tolerate competing churches and stick to overseeing secular matters, religion would have to fall back. There would have to be no persecuting of religions, either by the State or by rival sects. The mission of the churches is to save souls for the afterlife. The State’s mission is to ensure civil order in this world and avoid choosing which religion is “correct.”

Since 1689, much lip service has been given to this idea. But it’s never been fully accepted in ANY society, not even in that bastion of church-state separation, the U.S.A. Locke himself wasn’t ready to follow his statement to its logical conclusion. For example, he believed it was acceptable to persecute atheists, Catholics and Muslims. Atheists, he argued, don’t believe in an afterlife and therefore can’t be expected to be trusted when taking an oath. Catholics are seditious as their first loyalty is to the Vatican. And a Muslim’s first loyalty is to the Ottoman Empire. Locke didn’t realise that these people could be very good citizens of the country where they live. (He also didn’t realise that gays and lesbians could be good citizens even though they practised a type of sexuality that was different from the one he espoused.)

Still, the general idea had been planted. There should be NO religious persecution carried out or tolerated by the State. Any government measure against religion must exist only if there is a secular justification for it, and no religion-inspired law or government policy should exist if there is no secular justification for it. The State should deal only with life, health, property and other things of this world.

Churches say they support the separation of Church and State, but that doesn’t mean they think the State shouldn’t act for non-religious reasons only. The Vatican still thinks the State should enforce “moral law,” it’s version, of course. Churches still expect the State to impose their morality, which they call “natural law.”

Therefore, we must be able to criticise religion in order to make sure the State continues to deal only with things of this world. Promoting secularisation isn’t enough. If no one actively opposes religion, freedom of and from religion has no foundation. It must be legitimate to oppose religion itself.

If a claim of moral authority is made by a church, we must be able to challenge it and be a voice of disbelief. As Blackford asks, where does the church get its authority? Should it truly have that aura of authority? Are the religious authorities truly moral experts?