While I don't intend this to become a blog solely for my thoughts on religion (Steve Wells' blog, Dwindling in Unbelief, does a much better job than I ever could) the debate of it does take up the free time of my day. A few people have asked (some politely, some snidely) why I'm so interested in religion, when I'm an atheist myself.
I could be sarcastic and state that I might post on a forum dedicated to dogs, but that doesn't mean I have to be a canine myself in order to do so. But I'll elaborate a bit.
I'm a strong proponent of internalized beliefs. By 'internalized' I don't necessarily mean internal to one's self, but at the least internal to one's community. I have no problems with the beliefs held by Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, or any other spiritual group. I also have no problem when those beliefs are externalized for the purposes of debate and discussion (obviously, since I sincerely enjoy debating with theists on the topic of 'god'), as long as the believers understand that by bringing their beliefs into the open, I have the right to question them. Most of the time, I don't even mind when a theist "witnesses" at me, because in the end, it does me no real harm.
Where the problem arises is when those beliefs are externalized in such a way as to impact my beliefs (or lack thereof).
For example: I happen to be a gay man. Thus, the topic of same-sex marriage is an important one to me. As you may know, recently the initial federal trial completed regarding the constitutionality of Prop 8 in California. The judge for the trial, Vaughn Walker, ruled that Prop 8 (which amended the California Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage) was a violation of the United States Constitution and a civil rights violation.
His primary reason for the ruling? The defendants (supporters of Prop 8) failed to produce any comprehensive evidence that same-sex marriage in any way harmed the institution of marriage or existing heterosexual marriages; they also failed to show that there was any truth to much of the information upon which the campaign was based (such as the idea that children raised by same-sex couples were at some sort of social disadvantage).
When it came down to it, the only reasons the defendants could provide were based in their personal morals, which were based in non-universal religious views.
Those beliefs left the personal space of their owners(personal as in their community), and impacted the millions of homosexuals living in California (and, indirectly, homosexuals across the country). At that point, the beliefs of the Prop 8 supporters imposed on the beliefs and freedoms of others - those gay men and women who wish to marry. The defendants failed to show that a homosexual, in exercising his or her right to marriage, somehow imposed on the beliefs of the backers of Prop 8, or on their rights to marriage. The externalization of their beliefs caused an unfair limitation on the internal practice of the beliefs of another group.
Since the law (as defined by Aristotle) is meant to be "reason, free from passion", beliefs are not a solid grounding for any regulation. Law should be based on impartial justice, because there is no such animal as a universal, objective morality upon which to base it. That does not mean that law cannot match up with certain morality in some areas - only that, if those areas are religious in nature, they cannot constitute the sole basis for those laws.
Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." This must be kept true, and steadfastly enforced, in order to protect the individual's right to swing his fist. That means that when your fist meets the law, the law must prevail and your fist must withdraw.
And that is why I debate religion so fervently - not because I hate any god (it would be moronic to claim to hate a being I don't even think exists), or any religion, or the freedom of religion, but because to passively accept law based on religion would quickly lead to the crumbling of religious freedom itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment