Words'nTone

We have come to a pretty pass when atheism is allowed to invade public life.  Of course I am punning on the older, with a slightly altered spin on Lord Melbourne’s famous comment toward Christianity just to make a somewhat sarcastic point.  The older words I refer to are Lord Melbourne’s terse cut leveled at the horrible likes of William Wilberforce’s audacity to allow his private faith in Jesus Christ to influence his political views and invade English cultural debate.  The original Melbourne sneer at Wilberforce’s advocacy to end the slave trade read are on record: “Things are coming to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.”

We hear this in modern times as well, in many forms.  One particular inference comes from atheists who, in America, insist that religion should play no role, have no influence, nor have any bearing on matters public, especially if tax dollars or public property is concerned.  Anything that is forced on the public should not have a religious basis whatsoever.  There is a strong underlying secondary principle that, at least among atheists, that only what finds its basis scientifically should be forced upon the public and invade the arena of debate.  Those holding an atheistic worldview cannot mean that forced beliefs, rules, actions, etc. should find their basis in consensus (for a consensus still exits to allow, at least in a restricted measure, religious thoughts and ideas into public debate), or as a basis in democratic vote (i.e., a majority, since a vast majority of Americans hold to some form of religious faith).

My ponder here is not to say that in America an atheistic worldview, or a scientific basis cannot be allowed in the public debate (thus my opening is jest).  Of course they can.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights allows for all voices to be heard.  My only limit to such “freedom” is that any view—including a religious one—that denies the right of another’s voice to be heard equally no matter their basis is unconstitutional.  But I digress a little—my ponder:

Are we then to have a purely secular influence and shall absolutely no private belief system be allowed to have a say, a voice, an opinion, or a vote in the public sphere?  But, someone’s personal belief system will be allowed; for the public sphere shall not be voiceless (I am sure).  Why is it then that only religious-based beliefs are rejected and off-limits?  Isn’t an atheistic belief system a personal belief—for certainly it is a matter of faith that underlies the assumption that only science is a valid basis for debate and public opinion?  (For such a belief is most certainly built on an a priori assumption, which is a matter of faith, or at least a non-scientifically verifiable assumption about the universe.)

If we live in a democracy, then all voices have a right to be there—not just secular voices.  Of course, in America those of non-faith (e.g., agnostics and atheists) have a right to be heard and their views a part of the political debate.  I just don’t like it when I hear my view is being imposed upon American-atheists as if it simply should not even be a part of the public discussion.  “Your opinion is religiously based and motivated, so it is invalid and should not be imposed upon others.” It is still, things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life to some.

I am afraid, despite the desires of my non-believing, God-denying fellow Americans, that religion in the public sphere was part of the original intent of the founders and it is even, for crying out loud, in the founding documents.  Argue if you will that the First Amendment clauses keep religion out of public life via some supposed high “Wall of Separation,” but that wall was built to keep the State from mandating which religion you must adhere to—not the public to be void of hearing from those who have religions convictions.  It has always amazed me that the Lord Melbournes of today forget and ignore this historic context and the literary context of the Bill of Rights.  The placement and literary context gives first place of importance to how the public interacts with its government, and the founders agreed that religion does play a role.  The freedom of speech, the right of assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances are directly, contextually juxtaposed to the State not interfering with religion and that those having a religious basis for life to be free to do so (i.e., redress the government).  The First Amendment implies a religious voice in public affairs.  Until we live in a country which foundations are atheistic in worldview (like the former communist countries and various dictatorships—all which have not faired so well, have they), the role of religion in public life is a right by design, not default.

Finally, it amazes me that, although American-atheists desire to rid the public sphere of religious speech, they borrow religious terms and concepts such as love and honesty and other moral concepts.  This is odd, since in a purely atheistic world (universe), there is no basis for morality and such emotions and ideals are willy nilly up to the person.  Value statements are all personal.  And conveniently, atheists tend to forget (or deny) that there are still many underlying non-scientific and supra-historical assumptions that exist to form an atheistic worldview.  It has come to a pretty pass when religion and/or religiously based beliefs are left out of or even forced out of public debate.

The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.