Kenan Malik on gay marriage and Catholic ‘persecution’

British writer and broadcaster Kenan Malik has written a blog post about the recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights to dismiss three cases of supposed discrimination against Christians, and the larger issue of religious freedom versus equality laws. Malik’s post addresses the argument by Catholics that the legalisation of gay marriage is effectively an act of persecution against them, since it would “severely [restrict] the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship”. It’s the same tired refrain from religionists: taking away their right to discriminate on unreasonable grounds is an act of persecution, and contrary to the spirit of religious freedom. These claims, as Malik writes, “not only fundamentally misunderstand religious freedom, but, in their wild hysteria, serve also to undermine those very freedoms.”

Malik’s post is eminently quotable; here’s his response to the argument that gay marriage is a uniquely oppressive example of Catholic ‘persecution’:

There are many laws that liberal societies enact that are contrary to the beliefs and practices of many religions. The legalization of abortion, for instance, of homosexuality, and of divorce (and the acceptance that divorcees can remarry) – all legally permit practices condemned by the Catholic Church (and by many other faiths). Are these also expressions of the ‘persecution’ of believers? If not, why should the legalization of gay marriage be so different?

And here Malik shows why legalising gay marriage actually extends, not restricts, freedom of religion (emphasis Malik’s):

The claim that legalizing gay marriage undermines freedom of religion has it back to front. Legalizing gay marriage in reality extends freedom of religion. While most faiths oppose gay marriage, some support it and would like to consecrate same-sex unions. They are, however, forbidden from doing so by the law. Adherents of such faiths are, in other words, legally prohibited from following their conscience. In permitting such congregations formally to bless same-sex unions, any law legalizing gay marriage would extend freedom of religion.

As for the scaremongering by Catholics where they claim that equality laws would force them to perform same-sex marriages against their beliefs, Malik rebuts:

If legislation for gay marriage does lead to unacceptable infringements upon religious freedom, then we – secular and religious – should contest any such infringements. But the fact that injustice may be done to believers in the future is no reason to prevent justice being done to gays and lesbians today.

What about the claim that legalising same-sex marriage would prevent Catholics from teaching “the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship”? Malik writes:

[T]he issue of gay marriage is not fundamentally different from many other cases in which religious ‘truth’ diverges from that which the law permits or proscribes. The fact that abortion, contraception, homosexuality and divorce are all legal in Britain has not prevented Catholic priests or teachers from asserting their ‘truth’ on these issues, or barred them from entering any profession.

Finally, Malik expresses the gist of secularist arguments against religious privilege (not religious freedom).

[Catholics] have every right to believe [that marriage is between a man and a woman], to publicly express that belief and to act upon it by refusing to countenance same-sex unions within their church. What they do not have the right to do is to insist that if anyone else thinks differently, and wishes to act upon their belief, they are in so doing persecuting Catholics and attacking religious freedom, and that therefore such beliefs must not be acted upon. Religious freedom is important; too important to leave it be traduced in such cavalier fashion by particular interest groups.

21.1.13

Christians denied the right to trample on the rights of others

Following the last post on the Gillard government’s craven decision to let religious groups continue discriminating against ‘sinners’, at least the European Court of Human Rights recognises that a person’s religious beliefs do not grant her license to infringe the rights of others. The Court has thrown out three of four cases brought before it by Christians who claimed they had been discriminated against under UK law. From the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) report:

The Court found that the “balance” of rights had been made for the most part correctly in the UK, in effect confirming that UK law does not conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to manifestation of religion at work. However, the cases may have implications for many other countries under the European Convention on Human Rights and set precedent for possible future cases of alleged religious discrimination across Europe.

IHEU president Sonja Eggerickx had this to say about the Court’s ruling, with my emphasis in bold:

We are heartened that the court recognised not only the crucial importance of freedom of belief in Europe, but also recognised the value of the harm principle, namely that we cannot claim in the name of our own beliefs a freedom to impinge on the legal rights of others. The court recognised that domestic legislation must find a balance between competing rights, and that religion cannot automatically be allowed to trump equality laws or the principled policies of organisations. There is a trend among some religious lobby groups to dress up the principled removal of religious privilege as a form of persecution, and this trend is not unique to the UK.

The British Humanist Association’s Andrew Copson commented:

All reasonable people will agree that there is scope in a secular democracy for reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs when that accommodation does not affect the rights and freedoms of others. But if believers try to invoke their beliefs as a defence for treating other people badly – denying them a service because they are gay or claiming a right to preach at them in a professional context – the law is right to prevent them. It’s not persecution of Christians; it’s the maintenance of a civilised society for all.

As Sonja Eggerickx noted, religious lobbyists deliberately confuse the removal of religious privilege with persecution. They think being denied special treatment is the same thing as being denied the right to practice their faith. But of course, this confusion is understandable when you subscribe to the idea that an all-powerful, supernatural being compels us all to live according to his arbitrary, and often immoral, commandments. When you believe this, then being told that you can’t discriminate against gays is tantamount to being told to disobey your sky-daddy.

17.1.13

Religious privilege? What religious privilege?

It’s no secret that critics of religion are often made out to be mean curmudgeons with inflated grievances. They exaggerate the harms of religion while downplaying or ignoring the good that faith and the faithful contribute to society. Whether they are atheists, humanists or secularists, strident critics of religion all have a vendetta against any public expression of religious ideals, and are not above bully tactics to get their way.

This caricature omits one important detail: religion enjoys an unjustified and anachronistic kind of privilege that is denied – for good reasons – to secular ideologies and institutions. This religious privilege manifests as the automatic assumption of moral rectitude, and as special treatment from the government, like churches being exempted from both taxes and certain secular laws. It is this very privilege that allows religious groups in countries like Australia to discriminate against homosexuals, unmarried couples or anyone perceived to be egregious ‘sinners’. Given this, it is dishonest of its sympathisers to paint religion as the disadvantaged victim in any confrontation with its critics.

Our PM Julia Gillard may be an atheist, but her government is clearly committed to upholding the privilege of religious groups to break anti-discrimination laws simply because they believe that a sky-fairy would be quite cross if they had gays on the payroll. Labor’s new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill aims to consolidate existing anti-discrimination acts into one comprehensive law, but god-believers needn’t worry, the bill won’t remove their right to deny the rights of their fellow citizens. As David Marr wrote in The Age, the bill is a “bigots’ charter.”

Of course, religionists like Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby beg to differ. Wallace doesn’t think he’s a bigot because discriminating against, say, homosexuals is simply “a case of looking for people in employment of staff who represent your same philosophy of the organisation that’s employing them.” He goes on to compare religious prejudice with how an environmental group wouldn’t hire someone who was pro-logging, a false equivalence since the latter discriminates on purely ideological grounds while the former discriminates on things like sexuality, which is hardly a matter of choice.

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon seems a tad peeved with criticisms of the new bill. After all, the government’s aim was just to “simplify and consolidate the law, not completely re-invent the anti-discrimination system.” Because reinventing the system would mean ensuring that the rules apply equally to everyone, thereby removing any special treatment for religious groups. Roxon goes on to remind, and chide, us:

Labor is proud to have developed the sex, race and disability discrimination acts and established the Human Rights Commission. And we are proud now to be developing these important new protections from discrimination on the basis of sexuality… The fact that these new protections are being glossed over by some commentators is regretful.

Nice work Labor, except that religious organisations can still ignore these protections. And they are allowed to do so because of the divine mandate they supposedly possess, a mandate that they have convinced the public and government of Australia (and elsewhere) to be worthy of privilege. This is the same privilege that gives taxpayers’ money to Christian Evangelicals for them to proselytise to schoolchildren. It is the same privilege that equates religiosity with moral authority. And it is the same privilege that makes criticism of religion, unlike criticism of political, economic or scientific ideas, a specifically vulgar act.

HT: Grant Joslin

16.1.13

A quarter of Brits are non-religious

The UK’s 2011 census results are in, and they contain good news for humanists, atheists, agnostics and other non-religious people. You may remember the high-profile campaign ran by the British Humanist Association last year encouraging non-religious citizens to tick the ‘No religion’ box on the census. The campaign may have had an effect after all, as the results below indicate:

• The number of non-religious people has increased from 15 percent in 2001 to 25 percent in 2011.


• The number of Christians has dropped from 72 percent in 2001 to 59 percent in 2011.


• The number of Jedi Knights has more than halved, dropping from approximately 390,000 in 2001 to 176,632 in 2011.

That’s a dramatic decrease in the number of self-identified Christians with a corresponding large jump in the irreligious population. The BHA’s campaign urging so-called Jedi to stop being silly and just put themselves down as ‘no religion’ may have played a part in the massive drop in Jedi numbers. BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson responded to the census data with the following comments:

This is a really significant cultural shift. In spite of a biased question that positively encourages religious responses, to see such an increase in the non-religious and such a decrease in those reporting themselves as Christian is astounding. Of course these figures still exaggerate the number of Christians overall – the number of believing, practicing Christians is much lower than this and the number of those leading their lives with no reference to religion much higher.

Religious practice, identity, belonging and belief are all in decline in this country, and non-religious identities are on the rise. It is time that public policy caught up with this mass turning away from religious identities and stopped privileging religious bodies with ever increasing numbers of state-funded religious schools and other faith-based initiatives. They are decreasingly relevant to British life and identity and governments should catch up and accept that fact.

The UK is not yet as secular as countries like Japan, Sweden and Denmark, but amazingly it has become less religious, even less Christian, than Australia: 22 percent of Aussies have no religion (compared with 25 percent of Brits) while 61 percent of Aussies are Christian (compared with 59 percent of Brits). Still, both countries are much less religious than the US, which remains an anomaly among rich, developed countries with 73 percent of Americans identifying as Christians (though the number of non-religious Americans is rising).

The steady increase in the non-religious demographic in not only the UK, but Australia and the US also, is an encouraging sign that secular ideas and values are being embraced by more and more people in these countries. Religion will still be around for a while, and may even pull off a modest comeback, but social trends in the developed world are evidently not in its favour. Let’s celebrate that.

12.12.12

When a medieval law protects child abusers

In the wake of PM Julia Gillard’s announcement of a royal commission to investigate allegations of institutional child sex abuse, Cardinal George Pell bleated about how the Church was the victim of a smear campaign by the media. He also went on to defend the Seal of Confession, a Catholic sacrament whereby priests are forbidden to divulge the confessions of penitents, calling it “inviolable”. Here is Pell’s suggestion for how priests can avoid being caught between a rock and a hard place:

If the priest knows beforehand about such a situation [of sexual abuse], the priest should refuse to hear the confession. […] That would be my advice, and I would never hear the confession of a priest who is suspected of such a thing.

What an odious, and utterly impotent, piece of advice. Pell is basically telling his underlings that they’re better off turning a deaf ear to possible cases of sexual abuse rather than ‘violating’ a Catholic injunction against snitching. How does refusing to hear the confession of a child abuser help to bring him to justice? To protect innocent children?

Cardinal George Pell

 

Independent senator Nick Xenophon has called the Seal of Confession “a medieval law that needs to change in the 21st century”, and stated that “Church law, canon law, should not be above the law of the land.” Others agree, as the ABC reports:

New South Wales Premier Barry O’Farrell, who is a Catholic, says he cannot fathom why priests should not be required to pass on evidence of child abuse to police.

“I think the law of the land when it comes to particularly mandatory reporting around issues to do with children should apply to everyone equally,” Mr O’Farrell told AM.

“How can you possibly, by the continuation of this practice, potentially continue to give... a free pass to people who've engaged in the most heinous of acts?”

Federal Liberal frontbencher Christopher Pyne, who is also a Catholic, believes criminal law should take priority over church rules when it comes to child abuse.

“If a priest hears in a confessional a crime, especially a crime against a minor, the priest has the responsibility in my view to report that to the appropriate authorities,” Mr Pyne told ABC News.

“In this case the police, because the church nor the priests should be above the law.”

If Australia is to remain true to its secular principles, the laws of any religious body must not take precedence over civil laws. The Catholic Church in particular is notorious for its primary allegiance to the dictates of the Holy See in Rome, and will often give those dictates priority over the laws of the country in which the Church operates. Whether it concerns abortion, contraception or gay marriage, the Church holds its laws to be above those enacted by civil, secular society. Such insolence must not go unchallenged.

Of course, the elephant in the room is that the very idea of the Seal of Confession depends on the belief in ‘sin’, a ludicrous concept that underpins almost every Christian doctrine. Without it, there would be no need for a formal rite of ‘confession’, no need for priests to wrestle with both the demands of morality and the demands of the Church, no need for Pellian loopholes where terrible crimes are ignored to avoid ‘sinning’ by breaking the Seal of Confession. It is the idea of ‘sin’ itself, among other religious dogma, that is the cause of much harm inflicted by the Church.

14.11.12

Erdoğan doesn’t get it

Unless you just woke up 5 minutes ago from a decade-long cryogenic sleep, you would know about the Muslim riots in response to an execrable film that insults the prophet Muhammad. Bad taste and dirty tricks aside, the film Innocence of Muslims is the latest work that has elicited a grossly disproportionate reaction from many Muslims. Of course, certain liberals can be counted on to, if not condone, then at least rationalise the murders and violence by blaming the ‘provocative’ critics of Islam for being insensitive, even reckless. Nevermind that the victims of Muslim fanaticism are often innocent people who had nothing to do with the offensive film, or book, or poem, or cartoon. Nevermind that no amount of offense ever justifies physical violence and brutality.

Free speech fail.

These politically correct scolds who refuse to unconditionally condemn Muslim savagery can only encourage those like Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who wants to outlaw “attacks on religion”. In an absurd black-is-white statement, Erdoğan equated the silencing of religious criticism with respecting freedom of thought and belief:

Freedom of thought and belief ends where the freedom of thought and belief of others start. You can say anything about your thoughts and beliefs, but you will have to stop when you are at the border of others’ freedoms.

If Erdoğan is alluding to that famous catchphrase of individual freedom, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins”, he only shows just how far he misses the point of that statement. Firstly, offending a person’s beliefs, religious or not, is not the same as physically assaulting them. Secondly, the arbitrary nature of what is deemed offensive makes it practically impossible to avoid offending someone somewhere. Many Islamic beliefs are highly offensive to secularists like me. So do Muslims violate my freedom by simply holding and expressing those beliefs? Thirdly, Erdoğan’s bizarre adaptation of the “swing my fist” statement would mean that no one is allowed to discuss, criticise, debate or even comment on beliefs and ideas that they themselves do not hold.

By Erdoğan’s reasoning, you can’t give your opinion on Marxism unless you’re a Marxist. You can’t point out the flaws of libertarianism unless you’re a staunch free market advocate. And you definitely can’t criticise the regressive, sexist, irrational, violent aspects of Islam unless you acknowledge that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet (even then there is no guarantee that you won’t be viciously set upon by your fellow Muslims for casting aspersions on the faith).

Erdoğan has also compared ‘Islamophobia’ to anti-semitism, saying that “Turkey recognizes anti-semitism as a crime, while not a single Western country recognizes Islamophobia as such.” False equivalence much? Muslims constantly try to deflect legitimate criticism of their beliefs and values by confusing an ideology with an ethnicity. It doesn’t matter that Muslims may consider their beliefs to be indistinguishable from their personhood, because they are wrong to do so. By their logic, anyone who holds particular beliefs, however odious or harmful, is exempt from criticism so long as they identify strongly enough with those beliefs. A Neo-Nazi can therefore justifiably claim to be a victim of persecution when he is criticised, since his sense of self is inextricably bound up with his ideology.

Turkey under Erdoğan and his Islamist Justice and Development Party has become more conservative in recent years, with an increasingly religious bent to its politics. For a country that aspires to be a secular, democratic model for other Muslim-majority countries, its prime minister gives the worrying impression that he seeks to undermine that aspiration, whether for ideological or political reasons.

19.9.12

Some thoughts on Atheism+

Well, it didn’t take long for certain prominent members of the community of reason to weigh in on the freshly minted Atheism Plus, or A+, movement. There’s an A+ outline and response to its critics by PZ Myers, and two observations/criticisms by Ronald Lindsay and Massimo Pigliucci respectively. While I agree with Myers that disbelief in gods and religious doctrines would entail “significant consequences for how we should structure our society” and therefore atheism is not just “an abstraction floating in the academic ether”, I also agree with Lindsay’s and Pigliucci’s argument that secular humanism already addresses the same issues and champions the same causes as A+, making the new movement almost redundant.

To me, A+ is largely a branding exercise. One of the movement’s founders, Jen McCreight, has stated as much, saying that the ‘Atheism Plus’ concept is “fabulous marketing-wise and as a way to identify yourself as a progressive atheist.” Proponents of A+ are trying to imbue the word ‘atheism’ with connotations in addition to its mere dictionary definition. Some like Myers actually disdain the idea of a ‘dictionary atheist’, since they see it as a narrow, limited conception of what atheism should mean.

From a linguistic perspective, this attempt by the A+ crowd to shoehorn additional meanings into the word ‘atheism’ seems silly; it would be like trying to make the word ‘teetotaler’ also mean ‘a person who upholds values like temperance, self-discipline and sobriety’. Sure, these things can be associated with the word ‘teetotaler’, just as additional values outside of disbelief in gods can be associated with the word ‘atheist’. But these extraneous meanings are not, strictly speaking, implicit in both words. A teetotaler is someone who abstains from alcohol (for whatever reasons), and an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in gods (for whatever reasons), period.

So that’s the linguistic perspective. However, from a sociopolitical perspective, A+ proponents have a valid reason for wanting to ‘inflate’ the meaning of the word ‘atheism’ beyond its dictionary definition. Greta Christina has touched on this reason, which is to destigmatise the words ‘atheism’ and ‘atheist’ by impressing the progressive values that A+ stands for upon the minds of the general public, and in a sense teach the public to associate the word ‘atheism/atheist’ with those ethical values. So while pedants may complain, the practical effect is the gradual reduction of the negativity currently attached to atheism, at least in highly religious societies.

Furthermore, from a strategic viewpoint, it makes sense for A+ folks to use the word ‘atheism’ rather than ‘humanism’, even though A+ and secular humanism share similar values and goals: ‘atheism’ is punchier (aka controversial), and the emotional response it elicits from both proponents and opponents makes it a ‘sticky’ word. And as any marketing professional can attest, a good brand is a sticky brand.

As if there isn’t already a glut of atheist/humanist movements, we also have Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland writing up a manifesto for what he calls ‘Ethical Atheism’. Nugent’s preamble below makes the same argument as PZ Myers did in his blog post: that atheism necessarily entails social and political consequences.

In real life, atheism means more than mere disbelief in gods, or belief that there are no gods. If you disbelieve in gods, it necessarily follows that you also disbelieve that we get our ideas of truth and morality from gods. This is a significant approach to two central questions about life, in a world where most people believe the opposite.

This is a draft manifesto for ethical atheists who care about both truth and morality, and who want to promote reason, critical thinking and science; atheism over supernaturalism; natural compassion and ethics; inclusive, caring atheist groups; fair and just societies; secular government; and local, national and global solidarity.

Ethical atheism is more useful than dictionary atheism, because it applies the consequences of our atheism to real life. Ethical atheism is more precise than secular humanism, because religious people can be both secular and humanist, and because ethics affects all sentient beings and not just humans.

Despite the different labels being tossed around, one thing that Michael Nugent, PZ Myers, Ronald Lindsay, Massimo Pigliucci, Jen McCreight, Greta Christina and other atheists agree on is that regardless of which label we choose to affiliate with, what matters is our ethical, godless commitment to make this world a better place for everyone. Let’s keep this in mind whenever we are tempted to denigrate our allies.

30.8.12