By the law of England, it is illegal to attack the Christian religion; in practice, however, the law is not put in operation against expensive books or well-to-do authors: it is put in operation only against men who are not rich and not well-educated, and who address themselves chiefly to wage-earners.

The above comes from Russell’s article “Politics & Theology” (Political Quarterly, April, 1930) He continues later:

Take again the question of so-called obscene literature and art. The L.C.C. allows the showing of uncensored films to societies with a guinea subscription, but not to such as have a subscription of a shilling or two. Serious treatment in fiction of certain very important themes has been rendered impossible in this country by the decisions of magistrates, and so has the dissemination of important knowledge by pamphlets cheap enough and simple enough for a working-class circulation. One would have supposed that a party which pretends to stand for the interest of wage earners would object to the principle that things may be said in expensive books which may not be said in sixpenny pamphlets. Such, however, is not the case.

Bertrand Russell is bringing our attention to something very important, but often ignored: so-called “morality” laws are frequently designed against or are enforced against lower classes more than the upper classes. Nude images presented as “art” for the upper classes are not deemed pornography, but nude images in magazines for the average person are treated as pornography. Prescription drugs used and abused by middle class whites don’t receive the same media and police attention as the drugs used and abused by poor, inner-city minorities.

Russell saw the same things in operation when it came to the enforcement of anti-blasphemy laws. Books written from a more philosophical perspective and aimed at a more educated audience must have been more likely to be given a pass than pamphlets written to educate and inform the average worker. Why does this keep occurring across a broad range of subjects?

It is said, by those who defend the Government’s action, that clearly no one ought to speak ill of Christianity in such a way as to be likely to promote a breach of the peace. Those who use this argument do not, however, propose to extend the same protection to other religions. If you abuse Lenin to a Communist until he gets so angry that he hits you on the nose, the Communist is sent to prison. If the Communist abuses Christ to you until you get angry so that you hit him on the nose, it is again the Communist that is sent to prison. There is apparently no member of the present Government who is able to perceive that this is an injustice.

The difference in treatment which Russell describes here is attributable to the traditionally privileged status of religion. A person can be abusive to any other belief system, but criticism of religion is regarded as impolite and unwarranted — especially if it is the religion adhered to by the majority.

Contemporary America doesn’t have the same laws which Russell is complaining about, but there remains a difference in attitude which lay behind those laws. Religion, and especially Christianity, is treated as though it should be immune from even criticism, much less harsh attacks. Simply calling into question whether Christianity is true or rational is scoffed at by others who think nothing of lambasting political ideologies like liberalism or socialism.

Such privileging of religion has been slowly disappearing over the past century and it still has a way to go.

Quick Poll: Should religion get special privileges, like with anti-blasphemy laws?

1. Yes, religion is special and should be treated differently.
2. No, religion should be treated like other ideologies.
3. I don't know
4. I don't care

Read More:

• Philosophy 101
• Critical Thinking
• Religion 101