Distoring Secularism
I read an interesting article on Townhall.com by Zachary Gappa this weekend titled “‘Secular’ Discrimination Against Religion.” It made me realize just how easy it is for people to see one story and come away with very different versions of what happened.
The actual article is about a lawsuit against Google. The Christian Institute sought to purchase an advertisement from Google, “so that whenever the word ‘abortion’ was typed into the popular search engine, its link would appear on the side of the screen.” Google refused this request, stating, “At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of web sites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content.’” The general web chatter is that Google doesn’t allow “anti” paid ads placed under headings. So an anti-President Bush site won’t show up in paid ads under a search for the president, although it can show up under the regular search. This has been misinterpreted as “modern embracing of secularism” or discrimination against religion, when in reality, it is just a policy to protect the Google image as being fair and above board with the placement of paid ads.
Looking at Gappa’s article brings up further differences in interpretation. The very first point Gappa makes is as follows:
Many people today are concerned about the “separation of church and state.” More often than not, this means keeping religion out of the public sphere. They say the public sphere ought to be “secular,” free from talk of religion lest someone be offended. Religious freedom is interpreted as the freedom not to hear another person’s religious convictions.
His view, though it may be widely shared by some, isn’t exactly the correct way to understand the issue. A separation between church and state isn’t meant to prevent offending people. The public sphere should be free of religious language only so that public sphere isn’t dependent on religion (or one specific religion) to operate. Just as you shouldn’t ask a prospective employee their religious beliefs, when it comes to political candidates, they should be free from having to answer that question, and the voters should be free from having to hear the politician from proselytizing as a part of their campaign. To do otherwise (as the last election has shown) becomes very close to a litmus test. For a candidate to be forced to “verify” their religious convictions to prove their worthiness to hold office almost is almost an infringement on their rights to practice and believe whatever religion they choose.
Regarding morality, Gappa again has an slightly distorted perspective:
Most in today’s culture believe that a person’s religious beliefs do not have a broad impact on their view of life. In reality, a person’s beliefs about right and wrong, justice, and how they live their day-to-day lives are dictated by their religious beliefs. For the Christian, these standards are rooted in a belief in the God of the Bible. For a Muslim, they are rooted in the Koran. And for an atheist, they are rooted in the belief that there is no God.
Most atheists, humanists, et al that I know don’t root their beliefs in the idea that there is no God, but moreso along the lines of rational observation and experience. God is simply not part of the equation. The idea that we derive our morals from a lack of God makes me think people still believe that we have no morals, which is insulting. It’s still difficult for me to understand why people still can’t see that humanists and all freethinkers as moral people. There are so many (perceived or real) differences to overcome before we can find common ground. But I remain hopeful that, over time, it can be found.
Subscribe to Feed
I think the disconnect for many Christian thinkers (although there are many Christian airheads, there IS such a thing as a Christian thinker!) is the fact that many of us base our morals on the idea of absolutes, namely on the Bible.
Having spent some time reading and discussing issues here, I would no longer categorize Humanists as amoral or having no morals, but I still struggle with a lack of absolutes. What is your standard for morality? If it varies from person to person, that is kinda scary because that would mean we could not tell Jeffrey Dahmer what he did was immoral because it was not “wrong” for him. And using society as a standard can get into some shaky ground as well.
I fully understand that some people do not think the Bible is an adequate standard for judging morality. If we want to debate, I think we would be better off debating which standard to use. It’s just too easy to shoot relativism full of holes. What would be the common/universal standard for Humanist morality? Is there one?
Rob, I don’t think that there are absolutes, whether you believe in God or not. Different Christians and Christian groups find different messages in the Bible. As far as I can tell, the same is true for different Muslims and Muslim groups that study the Koran or Jews who study the Torah or different … etc. Humans must use their abilities to seek the truth and to try to do what is best for humanity whether they believe in a God or not. (And, of course, even if you were right that abosutes could exist and it would be better if we could find and follow them, that would not speak at all to the question of whether or not there is a God. The benefits or detriments of relativism are irrelevant when trying to determine whether or not God exists.)
MKB, I was not trying to argue against relativism in hopes of proving that God exists, I was merely answering Lisa’s question from a Christian’s perspective on morality without God. If God is not the standard, what is? If there is no absolute standard, it seems to me one is left with relativism…and I can find no ‘benefits’ to relativism.
MKB, without a standard, how do you define ‘morality’ or the ‘truth’ you believe all humans must seek? If truth is relative, then my belief in God and absolutes must be 100% as valid as your belief otherwise, no?
I’ll stop here…I just get fired up about relativism because it seems to me to be the bucket with the most holes in it. You make a valid point about different interpretations of the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc which is part of my point. In my opinion, relativism is such a terrible option that I think we would be better served starting with the assumption that there is an absolute standard and trying to figure out what the best standard would be.
Just wanted to say I’m not a disbeliever in a benevolent Divinity. Raised Xtian but am unable reconcile a 100% literal interpretation of any religious text with what I observe, think and feel for myself.
I find humanism to be one of the better attempts at working towards a better quality of life for all humans. It is also thankfully devoid of negative imagery and defeatist doom and gloom prophecy.
The Absolutist vs. Relativist debate in regards to morality is just to black and white. I hate over simplification of life with heady college words. They are important and have their uses but I prefer and open-minded and practical approach to reaching moral compromises that are based on mutual respect and sacrifice on behalf of all parties involved.
That’s the very reason philosophers and theologans have been discussing morality and truth for centuries. No one seems to have a claim to either of them or a perfect fix on either of them.
You see Rob as you say
I think that’s what most of us try to do because it is more comfortable than relativism. Its why we agree to be governed by certain laws and live in certain societies. But that doesn’t really free us from relativism, it just makes it easier for us to agree on a set of rules so we can live together.
I don’t mean to be harsh. I think we need to be very conscious of being moral. The world is cruel enough with out our taking the time to be good to each other, and many of the rules of society and even the rules of the many religions and Humanism etal have been time tested and reveal that they lead to better relationships, but they aren’t guarantees and some of those rules really applied more to much ancient times.
We must be willing to adjust the rules to the new findings of science and the new lives we lead to ensure that we are still doing are best to be kind to one another
Rob, you ask good questions.
I should have been clearer when saying that there are no absolutes. When I said that there are no absolutes, I was addressing only the context that we were discussing, a moral blueprint that can be discerned from a set of rules. There are absolute truths, just not moral blueprints. Thus, it is true that, as an adult, my daughter is shorter than her brothers, for example. Truth may not always be discernable, but it is not relative.
For those who do not believe in revealed truth, all we have to guide us are what we can learn from studying life and the wisdom of others. I cannot speak for everyone but I believe that for most people those things which lead to human (and planetary) viability and happiness are rated as good, and those things which do not are neutral or bad. How this is expressed varies from culture to culture but I don’t know of any culture in which Jeffrey Dahmer’s acts would be considered good.
What I was trying to point out is that even for those who do believe in revealed truth, the same exercise is necessary because revealed truth doesn’t seem to lead to abolute moral blueprints either. So we are all faced with the need to use our abilities to determine what is the proper way.
I realize that you were not making the argument that because I want there to be absolutes, there must be a god; but because it is such a common fallacy I thought it was worth addressing but only in a parenthetical because it was a bit off the point.
MKB that is really nicely put. Thank you for adding that.
As a moral relativist I will argue that relativism is all we have.
As John pointed out he is “unable reconcile a 100% literal interpretation of any religious text with what I observe, think and feel for myself.” This concept is at the heart of moral relativism because an individual is making decisions based on his or her own observations. Observations that no one else can have because they are unique to that individual. There can, of course, be agreement among individuals but there is never a case where everyone will always agree on what is moral.
Religious texts an their god(s) do create nd impose absolute morality on humanity. But let us not be fooled into think that ABSOLUTE morality is CONSISTENT morality. Just consider that the Bible says god freed the Isrealites from slavery and then allowed the Islrealites to take slaves.
In the New Testament Peter wrote
Peter 2:18-19
“18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.”
Using these verses as a guide Harriet Tubman would be considered immoral. Also, abolitionists and “conductors” on the underground railroad could be seen as leading slaves away from god.
Given these verses from the Bible, the only way one could make the Bible an effective moral compass is through moral relativism. Taking from the Bible that which is good and rejecting that which is evil, such as an embrace of the institution of slavery. Using one’s empirical observations as a guide he or she can discren what is right and wrong.
Excellent point, William! There are many, many other bible verses that could be used as examples as well. And saying that an absolute standard of morality comes from God doesn’t help, because we have to rely on God’s squabbling followers and self-appointed representatives to interpret it for us. So we’re going to have to figure it out ourselves anyway. Human experience and dialogue is the standard for morality, and always has been.