A consistent secularism

There is an excellent piece by Johann Hari in The Independent declaring: "We need to stop being such cowards about Islam." The cowardice he refers to is a disinclination to criticise Islam owing to (a) a misplaced belief in the virtues of "respecting" minority cultures, (b) a total misconception that Britain in the 21st century is another Weimar Republic, and (c) fear of the consequences.

Johann concludes:

"There is now a pincer movement trying to silence critical discussion of Islam. To one side, fanatics threaten to kill you; to the other, critics call you "Islamophobic". But consistent atheism is not racism. On the contrary: it treats all people as mature adults who can cope with rational questions. When we pulp books out of fear of fundamentalism, we are decapitating the most precious freedom we have."

I profoundly agree. Indeed, there's not much I believe more strongly. I strongly reject the notion that belief in the sacred is entitled to protection, whether by voluntary indulgence or legal sanction. The principle of respect for other people's deepest beliefs is not one I hold, and I consider its implications are pernicious.

I argued my case in an article for the admirable Index on Censorship last year; the article is reproduced on this blog, here. This is how I concluded:

"Respecting the beliefs and feelings of others is a lethal affectation in public policy. It is easy to depict freedom of speech as liable to cause hurt, precisely because it is true. The policy that follows from that is counterintuitive but essential: do nothing. The defence of a free society involves not taking a stand on its output, but insisting on the integrity of its procedures."

Comments

[Fran]

Good final point. As Voltaire said, it's the right to hold an alternative viewpoint which is sacrosanct, not the view itself.

But what's with the polarisation of atheism and religious fundamentalism creeping in here? Do you really equate the praxis of all faith with fundamentalism, and any sub-literalist approach as 'secular'? Because that's how it comes over. But the equation is as nonsensical and untrue as, say, characterising every atheist as a fundamentalist - yes, there ARE such people - supportive of the myriad vicious attempts by atheist regimes to eradicate faith and the faithful from the countries which they terrorise - Cambodia, the Soviet Union, Albania, etc.

Fact is, faith, like atheism, brings all sorts with it. In this country, for example, the first medical care, schooling, morality etc. And it's been responsive to outside influences, sometimes for good and sometimes not. All faiths are just not the same - rather like atheists, really.

[Frank Key]

One of the ways in which we are enjoined to respect others' beliefs is by the unthinking habit of describing them as "deeply held" or indeed "cherished". Almost invariably this is code for "religious", and suggests that the beliefs are somehow ingrained to the core. But they're not, and they sometimes change, and we should stop pretending otherwise. Ceasing the automatic use of "deeply held" and "cherished" (and I note Oliver uses "deepest" here) would be a small but useful step towards clarifying that *all* beliefs (religious and otherwise) are equally open to challenge, criticism, ridicule, or, indeed, support.

[Alcuin]

Good for Hari, and I don't say that often. Apart from its totalitarian polity, Islam's main problem is its founder. No Muslim, even the nicest ones, can resolve any moral issue while they hold in their heads the doublethink that a bandit, murderer and womaniser should be the perfect role model. Small wonder they get so het up when anyone broaches the subject, but we cannot tip-toe around it for much longer.

[Break Dancing Jesus]

I would just like to record that Mr Lindsay is a ridiculous man!

[Barry Larking]

Are we discussing Islam? For long I have felt that what is at issue is not faith, but culture.

[Tony Francis]

As a religious person, I am frequently offended by things said and written about my religion. But, if we are going to have "free speech", let's have it. There is no point in trying to stifle offensive thought and language. In the words of Larry Flynt, "All we will have is 'Mary had a Little Lamb' and the 'Three Little Pigs'". Actually, Larry was wrong: The Women Libbers would be offended because Mary only got a lamb, and not a cow, and PETA would be offended that animals were being enslaved. It is difficult to write or say anything that doesn't offend someone.

Jurisprudence, as it developed in the West, tended to avoid criminalizing of so-called "thought crimes". It is impossible to know what someone might be thinking. One exception is "inchoate crimes" - those which are incomplete and involve conspiracies. Prosecution of these involve the "thought and imputed intent". That's dangerous and troubling in many ways. But it may be necessary. If thinking about a crime is a crime, no one could write a crime novel, or report a crime. Same thing applies to religion: thinking bad thoughts about a religion may be a sin, but it can't effectively be a crime. Attempts to do so are bound to fail. Even considering such is cowardly and despicable.

The tendency to outlaw "hate speech" is pernicious and eroding of civil rights. It is done with good intention, but harmful, all the same. Criminalization of "hate crimes" is illogical:
Case one: "I am going to kill you because you are a disgusting cheat."
Case two: "I am going to kill you because you are a lousy (insert protected class: African American, homosexual, etc.)."
In current American legal thinking, Case one is a lesser crime than Case two. Are you kidding?
If you wish for the secular state, be careful what you wish for. And I say that as a person who is an enthusiastic supporter of the secular state.