Voicing Our Disbelief

Very interesting article Russel, but I still son’t see any need for assertive, “militant” atheism.

I am, of course, against the interference of religion in public policy, and against the interference of religious persons in the private lives of others.

But I affirm the right of everyone, including religious persons, to believe what they want to believe in the privacy of their own heads, or of their chosen group of interlocutors.

To deny this right is to open the door to bigotry and fundamentalism—the same bigotry and fundamentalism that have resulted in holy wars and the inquisition. Let’s not open that door, and continue to believe in the fundamental principle of live-and-let-live.

@Mike: I disagree. This is thought-policing.

Note that I agree that reason and science should take precedent over faith and superstition, in public policy making.

But I have no issue with those who think that there are “different ways of knowing” or “different paths to truth.”, and stand behind their right to discuss and practice their conviction, as long as they don’t try to force me to listen.

Note that similar arguments based on “covert damage” can be (and have been) used by “moral majorities” to oppress minorities whose chosen lifestyle they don’t approve of.

“..when believers try to pass dogma-based laws, etc.”

What if a group of legislators, whether they’re religious or atheists, try to pass a law that they claim only /coincidentally/ coincides with Biblical (for instance) dogma? Say, for instance, an anti-abortion law.  Should we disbelieve the religious legislators but not the atheist ones?

@Mike: No one that I know of is trying to deny the rights of believers to believe what they want.

This is good. Your ...is not only nonsense, but is also actively harmful made me think otherwise, but I see I was mistaken.

It is important to resist all temptations to police other person’s private thoughts, sensibilities and dreams. Doing so would be a first step on a very slippery slope towards outcomes that we don’t want to see again.

This does not mean that we should not do our best to promote rationality and scientific thinking as the best way to manage our world and our society.

@ Mike Treder—So, sticking to the issues, and not focusing on where one /gets/ one’s ethics is the way to go, right? So why do I still suspect that if a legislator were to promote a law that you don’t like, you would quickly Google the man’s name, find out if he went to a church, uncover the severe views of the pastor, and use that as a weapon against him?