Lean Left

« Previous | Next »

What is Off-Limits, and Why?
Posted by KTK

[NB: This began as a comment on Kevin’s post, below. But my point is somewhat different, and the comment got too long, so I moved it up here. - KTK]

Attacks on Romney for being Mormon are out of line and should be condemned.

Why, exactly, is this, anyway?

If attacking someone for “being an X” (where “X” is “member of some certain religion”) is understood simply to mean saying that they hold certain beliefs (characteristic of X) and those beliefs should be condemned, why would it possibly not be legitimate to attack them in that way? What else could we judge a person on - especially in the political arena - but their beliefs and how they act on them? We certainly have no hesitation in making such attacks for all beliefs other than religious ones - but are somehow pulled up short as soon as those beliefs are called “religious”.

The strangest thing is that we have allowed the least-defensible beliefs to be elevated to the level of the most-off-limits to criticism - while simultaneously allowing holders of those beliefs to cite them, without being called on to defend them, as reasons for their adopting policies that are themselves indefensible.

Homophobia is a character flaw. Religious homophobia is not only a point of pride for many, but instantly becomes acceptable and off-limits to criticism as soon as the adjective is added to the insanity. That the embryo or early fetus has precisely the same moral interests as a full-grown, mentally competent adult is an absurd proposition on its face. Assert it as religious belief, and it sudenly becomes not merely worthy of respect, but irrefutable!

In any other context, we would demand reasons and explanations for what people do, and would subject the beliefs that guide their actions to the test of rationality and conformity to civilized values. Yet we have allowed ourselves to be prohibited from doing so any time the subject merely asserts that those beliefs are religious (or, “matters of faith”, as if that were somehow more exalted than sectarian dogma).

For no conceivable reason, we have condemned huge swaths of public policy, political discourse, and private life to the exclusive hegemony of (aggressive, politically-motivated) non-rational sectarian activism, grounded on nothing more than self-justifying fervency - and we reinforce this suicide pact by the constant reminder to those who might be inclined to display any degree of logical rigor in that direction, that “we must not criticize people’s religion”. I suggest, instead, we should grant religion the respect of being taken seriously enough that we expect it to make sense, demand that it not offend against the rights and values of other members of the community, and reject it when it fails these tests.

There are reasons to be cautious about attacks on religious beliefs, of course. The history of religious persecution, and the religious wars still ongoing, point up the dangers of religious prejudice or religious animosity, as opposed to criticism of religion. But those dangers are precisely those of prejudice, persecution, and war of conquest - things we know are unacceptable for reasons having nothing to do with religion. We have rightly repudiated our history of religious prejudice, but in embracing tolerance have given religious believers carte blanche for their own prejudice and irrationality - to the point that, today, the religious right declares that it is victimized by not being allowed to persecute gays (among many, many other ordinary facts of civilized life)!

One might reasonably argue that religion, properly understood, belongs on the “private” side of the public/private distinction and is thus immune to criticism. This argument is an important one, and I would like to see it better appreciated. I would be glad to accept such a consensus. But that would also mean that religion could not be cited as justification for public policy, or even for support of policies congenial to one’s religion that were not supportable on other grounds. (The fact that you like Mozart does not justify you in demanding special privileges for Mozartians. The fact that you like Jesus does not justify you in demanding special privileges for Jesusians, still less reduced privileges for others.) If religious believers were willing to see their own religion as JFK did, as a personal matter which he would not allow to interfere with his political duties, they would have a claim to be entitled to practice their beliefs without criticism - but there would also be no reason for that criticism. It is because religious believers refuse to treat their own beliefs about religion - or anyone else’s - as private that they are subject to criticism for the content of those beliefs which they bring into the public sphere.

There is, finally, the “don’t rouse the bastids” argument - that holding people accountable for the content of their religious beliefs simply provokes them, often into violence, and that it’s better just to let things ride. I think recent history has taught us the emptiness of that forlorn hope.

So, I think I’m tired of constantly being told we can’t say anything about the reasons other people cite for distorting public policy and blunting the lives and freedoms of others. I want to hear rational reasons, grounded in fact, for laws and policies, and I want to see a firm consensus that any laws or policies not so grounded are invalid on their face. I want it said, and universally acknowledged, that most of the policies promoted by the religious right - from “abstinence only” to lack of birth control to mandated false information about abortion to phonics-only language instruction (how did that become a religious issue, anyway?) to embryo fetishism to creationism - are grounded on no rational analysis and no provable facts, and have been abject failures in practice; I want the obvious implication of that fact acted on and these idiotic policies vacated unless and until they can be defended on rational grounds in comparison with what we already know is true and does work. I want every Republican candidate to be required to cite explicit reasons, grounded in fact and logic, for their support (if it is such) of creationism, lack of choice on abortion, anti-environmentalism, airwaves censorship, and whatever other absurdities they’ve been pushing, and I want every one of them blackballed from the primaries if they can’t do so, plausibly, without notes, on the first try. I want Romney to explain exactly how his Mormonism influenced his (various) votes on abortion, stem cell research, and access to birth control, and, if his answer is anything other than “it’s totally irrelevant”, why exactly we should take seriously as a presidential candidate someone whose policy decisions are grounded in such absolute, sidesplittingly ludicrous inanity as the Book of Mormon. I want all the other Republican candidates (and Hillary, and maybe Obama and Edwards) to answer the same question about their policy decisions, on the same grounds. Then I want them all to answer the question “How will your religion influence your policy decisions in the future?”, and, if their answers are anything but “it’s totally irrelevant”, I want a big trapdoor to open under them and dump them in a pit for the duration of the campaign. Mostly, I want the things religious people say and expect others to believe to be subject to test, in the same way any other statement by any rational person is so.

Until now, that has clearly been too much to ask, because we have allowed ourselves to be bamboozled into accepting absurdity as wisdom, falsehood as truth, and faith as reason. But is it too much to expect from now on?

June 25th, 2007 General, Politics, Church & State, Religion, Culture, Privacy, Education, News & Current Events | one comment