The Right to Refrain from Speaking

“Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Mohammedism or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.”
— Justice Stevens for the majority, Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, June 4, 1985.

The above quotation and the Supreme Court decision from which it came are important for non-believers.  We should all be aware of them and what they mean.  They mean that the right to choose not to believe is just as important as the right to choose which church to join.  In other words, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not just protect believers as some have tried to maintain.

Also important is the recognition that the right to refrain from speaking is just as important as the right to speak.  This is particularly important in school prayer and other "captive audience" cases where believers put people on the spot and force them to declare their beliefs in some fashion--such as publicly failing to participate in prayer or refusing to answer a question.  In such cases, the right to remain silent can only be protected by forbidding the government from taking actions that will put people in such situations.

Excellent Quotation

This quotation from Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" has been seen and used by many but it is still a good one to have handy for use with a religious person who insists that religion is a, if not "the", source of morality:

“The men who committed the atrocities of September 11 were certainly not "cowards," as they were repeatedly described in the Western media, nor were they lunatics in any ordinary sense. They were men of faith—perfect faith, as it turns out—and this, it must finally be acknowledged, is a terrible thing to be.” ― Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason."

Rights

Many of the things that believers say to non-believers amount to little more than euphemisms for "shut up".  Often they will tell us this quite directly.  It is rare (but not unknown) for them to be completely direct.  Usually, however, they will preface their bullying with statements that it is our right to believe there is no god but that we shouldn't say it.  One possible response is to say some version of the following:

If I don't have the right to say it, then I really don't have the right to believe it.  "Rights" are only an issue when determining how others treat you and that only happens after they know you have different beliefs.

If needed to make the point clear, you can add:

What people think, but never say, is unknown to others and thus there is no question of "rights".

Birth Control and Faith Healing

Like so many other sane people, I sincerely hoped never to hear of Rick Santorum again after he lost his re-election bid to the Senate.  I was very disturbed that someone so obviously insane could ever have been elected to the Senate at all, and his defeat confirmed my belief in the soundness of Democracy.

Yet, here we are again.  He's not only back in the public eye in a big way, he is actually running a relatively successful campaign for President of the United States.  He may never be President, he may never even be on the republican ticket, but he has won a surprising number of republican state primaries.  One can argue that this is only because the republican base doesn't trust the conservative bona fides of the frontrunner, Mitt Romney, but it is disturbing nonetheless.

Santorum's views on many matters are so far outside the mainstream that it is disturbing that a significant number of people would vote for him under any circumstances.

One of the more disturbing view he holds was recently brought to light by his comments on birth control.  A few months ago, when he was still considered a lunatic fringe candidate, he stated in an interview

"It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."  See Time Magazine's coverage here.

What I noticed immediately was that this reasoning is equally applicable to the use of antibiotics and I wondered if Mr. Santorum ever gave his children or himself antibiotics when ill.  Would he be willing to stand by and let one of them die as god's will rather than use modern technology because it is "counter to the way things are supposed to be"?

By the same token I realized that this reasoning applies to modern medicine in general.  It is, in effect, the sort of reasoning one hears from those who believe in faith healing.  This conclusion is further reinforced by Mr. Santorum's view that the "decision" of whether or not a new life is begun by a sexual act is "god's" and not man's.

If you think, perhaps, that he doesn't really see things this way, just consider his comment concerning women who become pregnant as a result of rape:

"The right approach is to accept this ... gift of human life, and accept what god has given you." 

In other words, every pregnancy is god's decision, god's gift.

I am sure that if you point this out to Mr. Santorum or those like him you will hear an argument based on the distinction between preserving life and ending it.  In other words, they think it is permissible for man to intervene to preserve what could be considered life but not for any other purpose.  Unfortunately for those who think this way, however, the reasoning applies equally to all such situations.  If the decision is god's, then mankind should not be interfering.

The problem, of course, is that this position is a purely religious one (no matter how hard they try to dress it up as something else).  As such, it is the right of the individuals involved to decide for themselves how to proceed.  It is not up to Mr. Santorum, the Government, or anyone else to determine matters as personal as birth control and religious belief.  And, those who don't see this don't respect the right of others to have their own opinions or private lives.

Classic Shamelessness

A news item appeared recently about the trial of a clergy abuse case in Pennsylvania.  The case involves sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests in the Philadelphia Archdiocese.  This may seem almost like old news, but it is significant for a couple of reasons.  First, it is legally significant because one of the accused is being charged with endangering children for his handling of complaints lodged against priests under his supervision.  He, no surprise, covered up the allegations and reassigned the accused priests to new parishes.

The case is also significant to my thinking because it illustrates a phenomenon I have seen on many occasions when dealing with the religious.  They treat people so badly that it causes psychological damage, then turn around and say that the symptoms of that damage prove there was something wrong with the victim and that he or she should therefor not be given any credence.  At the end of the news article one can find evidence of a plan to do just that:

"Defense lawyers plan to argue that the accusers are out for money or hope to explain away their troubled lives. Both accusers have criminal records and a history of drug addiction."

This is truly an example of utter shamelessness.  Of course the victims have problems.  How could they not after suffering such horrific abuse at the hands of trusted authority figures?  For the perpetrators to then argue that the very problems the abuse caused are proof that the claims are false and (let's face it) to imply that the plaintiffs are unworthy is to display a complete lack of a conscience.  This is the behavior of a psychopath or someone with severe narcissistic personality disorder with psychopathic traits.  Yet, I have seen this sort of behavior from the religious numerous times both in news reports and in real life.

Such people apparently believe that because they are "god's agents" they are entitled to special privileges.  They think their well-being is more important than that of the sheep (and lambs) in the flock.  They think that the sheep should be happy (or at least quiescent) to "serve their needs".  The fact that the victims feel damaged and display signs of damage simply proves their unworthiness--apparently.

Lest it seem like I am overstating the case, remember that attacking a person's motivation for saying something is not a logical argument regarding the merits of the dispute.  It is a personal attack on one of the disputants. 

People always have motivations for their actions, thus such a disingenuous argument can always be made.  Because they can be argued to undermine a witness' credibility, however, they are usually allowed.  Please note, however, that this is barely one step removed from arguing that a rape victim was a slut who was asking for it. 

The actual purpose for introducing such evidence is often to cause the plaintiff to drop the case rather than undergo the embarrassment of being cross-examined about the worst parts of their lives, or, if that doesn't work, turn the jury against the accusing party--to convince the jury to rule against that party not because of the merits of the case but because they don't like him or her. 

This is a tried and true tactic of the religious and they use it both in and out of the law courts.  Even if their victims don't sue or press charges, you can bet the victim will be subjected to a slander campaign if he or she dares to complain to anyone--and sometimes merely on the suspicion of complaining about the mistreatment.

An Insightful Old Joke

There is an old joke that periodically makes the rounds, especially amongst non-believers, that I think is actually quite insightful.  It goes like this:

It seems a Christian missionary was visiting with remote Inuit (aka, Eskimo) people in the Arctic, and had explained to this particular man that if one believed in Jesus, one would would go to heaven, while those who didn't, would go to hell.

The Inuit asked, "What about all the people who have never heard of your Jesus? Are they all going to hell?'

The missionary explained, "No, of course not. God wants you to have a choice. God is a merciful God, he would never send anyone to hell who'd never heard of Jesus."

The Inuit replied, "So why did you tell me?"

The rather obvious answer to the Inuit's question is this:  "In order to coerce you to join my religion."

In other words, the joke is actually an illustration of the psychologically coercive nature of religion in general and the myth of Hell in particular.  Most people won't see this, however, unless it is pointed out to them.

Respect

One hears a lot of talk about "respect" from the religious, especially when it comes to their religion.  I find that usually they don't really mean that others should respect their beliefs.  What they mean is that those who question their beliefs had better shut up or else.  What they mean is that we had better fear them.  Whenever one of them starts talking about respect, this lack of understanding of the term can usually be sensed by the way in which they use it or by comparing the treatment they are demanding with the treatment they give to other religions or to the non-religious. 

I find that sometimes a good response is to say something along the lines of the following:

"Respect is a two way street.  If you demand respect without giving it, then what you are really doing is demanding fear--just like a common bully."