Moral Health

A complete disregard for the truth has become commonplace.  The surprise, perhaps, is that the Freedom from Religion Foundation turns out to be an organization that has blatantly disregarded the truth.  Lest there be any understanding, I have no objection at all to such a foundation although I am a very committed theist.  It is often the case that there is much that can be learnt from those with whom we disagree, provided that both sides are forthright and refrain from sheer polemics.

In Illinois, the Freedom from Religion Foundation put up a protest sign that read as follows:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail.  There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.  There is only our natural world.  Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Well, the first thought that comes to mind here is that religion at its best most certainly is not a form of superstition in the way that believing in ghosts is or believing that rabbit a foot brings good luck is.  Nor, again, is religion myth in the way that, for instances, the Grimm’s Fairy Tales are.

In the end, it may be possible to show that religion at its best amounts to no more than superstition or myth.  However, no one has yet shown that.  No one—not even Richard Dawkins himself.  Instead, what we have here is none other than a lot of high-handed declarations to the effect that religion amounts to no more than these things.  Alas, high-handed declarations, no matter how much passion is behind them, do not amount to a good argument.

Of course, the Freedom from Religion Foundation can rightly point out that lots and lots and lots of stupid things have been said and done in the name of religion.  Well, that fact will not distinguish religion from just about anything else, including science.

For example, in the name of science it has been claimed by that there is no morally relevant difference between chimpanzees or gorillas and human beings.  This is an absurd claim given the simple reality that it is human beings who are said to have obligations to these animals whereas these animals are not even thought capable of having any obligations to human beings.  Alas, this stark difference has been no barrier at all to individuals making the claim that chimpanzees, gorillas, and human beings are all equally persons.  Individuals who have made this outlandish claim include such respected thinkers as Jane Goodall, Francine Patterson & Wendy Gordon, Roger S. Fouts & Deborah H. Fouts, and Peter Singer.

Let us see: Between (a) the belief in an Almighty God and (b) the belief that the chimpanzees, gorillas, and human beings are all equally persons (although humans have moral obligations to these animals, whereas these animals are incapable of moral obligations to human beings): Exactly which belief is more ludicrous?  Indeed, which is really worse: “stupid people” believing in God or distinguished scholars believe that chimpanzees, gorillas, and human beings are all equally persons?

Yet, the Freedom from Religion Foundation suggestions that any theist is none other than a babbling idiot, as if it is theists and only theists who have a monopoly on saying absolutely indefensible things.  Not so, however, as we have just seen.

Now, the following is a statement made by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, regarding the history of Western civilization:

In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women’s right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.

The idea here, of course, is that free thinkers are non-religious people; hence, we are to conclude that it was non-religious people who played a major role in racial equality.

Alas, the folks at the Freedom from Religious Foundation are so committed to their anti-religion ideology that they would much rather deny the role of religion in achieving something so social significant as racial equality rather than acknowledge the indispensable role that religion played in achieving that end.  The religious group called the Quakers was at the forefront of the abolitionist movement.  But the people at the Freedom from Religious Foundation would rather re-write history than give these religious folks their due.

For me, there is no more telling sign that ideology rules the day than that people would rather deny the truth or re-write history than give credit where credit is due for the good that another has done.  My view of matters is very simple: If of his own accord a neo-Nazi member steps out of his ideological role to save a Jew’s life, then at the very least the Jew in question should be willing to say that much about the neo-Nazi.  No hostility towards neo-Nazis, however justified such hostility is in general, would justify not acknowledging the good behavior of the neo-Nazi.

It is in fact unconscionable that the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) would dare suggest that only non-religious people have made a significant contribution to social equality.  Let me see, how many hungry people have the FFRF fed?  How many hungry people has the Salvation Army fed?  And what exactly does one call making sacrifices to help others stay alive but a marvelous affirmation of their equal humanity.

I have no interest whatsoever in maintaining that only religious individuals contribute to social equality.  Rather, what I am objecting to is the patently false view that only non-religious individuals contribute to social equality.

Finally, there is this hypocrisy.  In a USA Today article published in 2007 entitled “Some Say Schools Giving Muslim Students Special Treatment,” the issue is raised of Muslim students at the University of Michigan at Dearborn—a taxpayer funded institution—being given prayer rooms and ritual foot baths.

One might very well ask: Why exactly has the Freedom from Religion Foundation not made a fuss about that sort of thing?  I mean surely that thought cannot possibly be that Christianity is a much more silly and indefensible and incoherent religion than is Islam.  And while we can certainly point to the ways in which Christianity has been used to justify the enslavement of blacks, a quick Google search will turn up countless documents concerning the role of Islam in the enslavement of blacks in Africa, as with the essay entitled “An African Asks Some Disturbing Questions of Islam”.

I understand that Christianity is dominant in the United States.  Still, what an impact the Freedom of from Religion Foundation (FFRF) would make if it went after Muslims who also crossed the line between separation of Church and State that the foundation holds so dear.  That would immediately make FFRF far less hypocritical, which would at least be a step in the right direction.

Presently, the Freedom from Religion Foundation would seem to be no more than an incoherent and indefensible ideological movement whose target is none other than Christianity.  In the short amount of time that it is has taken me to write this blog-entry, I a theist, have shown myself to be far more free thinking than the folks at the Freedom from Religion Foundation.  Fancy that.