Suzanne Fortin: Atheism a Danger to Religious Freedom

One of the most curious and disturbing calumnies hurled against atheists is the idea that the mere presence of public atheism is a threat to everyone's religious freedom. Apparently, if people have the freedom to not believe in gods and even argue on behalf of not believing in gods, then the freedom of others to believe in various gods is endangered.

No, it doesn't make any logical or empirical sense, but it's a belief held to firmly by a variety of people. This claim is frequently used to argue not just against the permissibility of atheists in the public square, but also secularism and church/state separation. The idea that a secular government is hostile to religious practice is older, yet also clearly related. It's thus hard not to conclude that both positions are adopted not due to the force of any evidence or logic, but simply to rationalize one's desire to have one's religion enforced by the state.

Suzanne Fortin writes:

Once upon a time, centuries ago, people of various faiths could talk to each other. At least the educated could. ...Although people disagreed on dogma, they had a common philosophical patrimony in the natural law. Catholics, Jews and Muslims had contacts with each other and could speak based on that common patrimony rooted in ancient philosophy. ...Tolerance was based on this commonality.

Uh, yeah, if by "talk" one means "fight" and "slaughter." Centuries ago, areas under Christian control saw extensive oppression of Jews and Muslims while areas under Muslim control could be little better. And what about the relations with other religions? I guess they don't count -- and if you pay attention, you'll find no mention of them.

I don't know what Suzanne Fortin has been smoking, but the idea that there existed some sort of Golden Age of interfaith cooperation and tolerance centuries ago may be one of the most laughable claims I've yet see a Christian make about their own history.

Enter widespread atheism.

Note the context here: Suzanne Fortin seems to want readers to believe that everything was going great among the "educated" religious believers until "widespread atheism" showed up. Curiously, Fortin doesn't state when that was supposed to have happened, where it started, or how it spread. Why, it's almost as if she's just making it up in order to fit some sort of preconceived conclusion.

Up until the late twentieth century, atheism had always been a marginal world view. It's true that atheists subscribed to various ideologies, and can't be said to have an ideology in common.

Note the complete contradiction, achieved in the span of just a few words: atheism is a "world view," but atheists don't have a common ideology. Huh? I'm surprised Suzanne Fortin didn't give herself a case of mental whiplash from such an extreme and quick reversal.

But in this day and age, political correct ideology is coalescing around "religious neutrality", which neither affirms nor denies the existence of God. It just requires that people in public institutions affirm this neutrality.

Which amounts to a practical form of atheism. If you do not affirm that God exists, and you're acting like he doesn't, it practically amounts to saying that he doesn't: that he's irrelevant.

Being neutral in religious matters means not taking sides in any religious disagreements. A state that is neutral towards religion therefore doesn't favor one church over another, one denomination over another, one sect over another, one theological position over another, or even religion generally over non-religion. In America, government neutrality has been created by denying the government any authority over religious matters. Without the authority to act, the ability to interfere and take sides is diminished.

This should be an obvious and unobjectionable principle to adopt. Who wants government bureaucrats favoring polytheism over monotheism, Islam over Christianity, liberal Episcopalians over conservative Catholics, etc.? No one -- but there are people who would like to see government bureaucrats doing the opposite: favoring monotheism over polytheism, Christianity over Islam, and conservative Catholicism over liberal Episcopalianism. People may support government neutrality when it appears that their religion might be disfavored, but not when they think their religion might be favored.

The problem is, there is no way to achieve the latter without risking the former -- at least, not unless something like a quasi-official theocracy is set up. If the government is given the power and authority to favor monotheism over polytheism, then it is given the power and authority to do the opposite. Likewise for Christianity and Islam, or any other competing groups or ideologies you could name.

When religion is transformed into a public matter -- where "public" means a subject of government activity -- there is no way that government will not interfere with people's religious liberty. Some Christians imagine that religion can be made "public" in only a limited sense that includes just a few things, like public funding without public accountability or becoming the basis or public policy without being supported by the whole public. They don't imagine that the government would then acquire the authority and power to regulate religion just like it regulates other aspects of the public sector -- but there is no avoiding this in the long run.

The big problem with this is that once you treat God as non-existent, and effectively accept that he's non-existent, the impetus for acknowledging religious freedom no longer exists.

Because such a freedom is not necessary in the atheist mind.

Would you, for instance, want the freedom to believe in the tooth fairy and other mythical creatures to be recognized by public institutions?

Of course not. It's non-sense. Why should we act like it's true.

To the atheist, the same logic applies. Why should he act like religion is true, when it's not?

I think it's safe to say that Suzanne Fortin doesn't have any idea what secularism and church/state separation are -- or, if she does, she's deliberately trying to mislead her readers. It's true of course that atheists don't regard gods as any more real than fairies, but that's not why they don't want the government to promote, endorse, privilege, or fund belief in any gods. Note that she doesn't actually bother quoting any atheists on this matter.

Remember, there are also plenty of theists -- including Christians -- who also don't want the government to promote, endorse, privilege, or fund belief in any gods. They obviously do believe in some sort of god. The position of both groups is fairly similar: they object to government involvement in religion because it's unconstitutional, unwise, dangerous, and a threat to people's liberty.

It's not the existence of atheists or even outspoken atheists which is a threat to religious liberty; instead, the threat comes from ignorant, self-righteous Christians who are convinced that the state should have the authority to promote their particular religious beliefs regardless of what this does to anyone who disagrees.

The problem is that atheists and secularists want to treat faith like it's a purely private activity.

When for the bulk of believers, it's not.

They want to define FOR PEOPLE OF FAITH whether faith should be public or private. They think it should be private because to them it's a subjective opinion. And subjective opinions have no business being foisted onto people, in their minds.

When people contrast the "public" and "private" expressions of religious beliefs, they typically equivocate upon two different meanings that each could have. Either Suzanne Fortin is deliberately being ambiguous about the public/private distinction, or she just doesn't understand what she is talking about. One public/private distinction is between what we as individuals do in the privacy of our own homes, away from the view of others, and what we do out in plain view of everyone. It is true that free and just society must protect free expression in both cases.

There is, however, another public/private distinction -- the one that is really at issue: private, as in what individuals do (whether in their homes or in the street) and public, as in what the government does (public funds, public housing, etc.). A free society must protect the religious expression of the former (individual citizens) but not the latter. The government has no "right to free speech".

Which does Suzanne Fortin mean? Does she even know? Or is ahe being deliberately ambiguous, making it look like he is saying the former (which everyone will agree to) when he really means the latter (which is actually the point being debated when it comes to things like government-funded displays of the Ten Commandments)?

Fortin is clearly being disingenuous when she claims that atheists think "faith" should be "private" because it's a "subjective opinion." I've never seen any atheist arguing that "subjective opinions" should be kept private and it's noteworthy that she doesn't bother quoting anyone saying any such thing -- indeed, she doesn't quote any atheists at any point in her argument, strongly suggesting that she knows very well that so much of what she's written is false.

People of faith want to transmit their beliefs to their children. Secularists don't want to fund religious schools with their money. Okay fine. But why should people of faith be forced to fund practical atheism? After all, the school is going to teach and act like God doesn't exist, that one religion is just as good as another.

Suzanne Fortin is conflating -- and deliberately, I suspect -- secularism with atheism. It's a common myth that if a school isn't teaching and promoting some religion in particular, then it must be teaching and promoting atheism. To call this "nonsense" would be an understatement. It's like saying that baseball is promoting atheism simply because the players aren't required to pray before every pitch.

The mere absence of religion or theism in any given activity or institution doesn't mean that irreligion or atheism are being taught, promoted, encouraged, or endorsed. This is obvious and the only reason why someone would assert it is because they are trying to find some justification for having their religion actually be promoted, endorsed, and encouraged by that institution.

Atheism makes things bad. Subjectivism and relativism makes things worse. With subjectivism (the belief that all truth is in your head, that it's not a faithful reflection of reality) and relativism (that truth is subject to circumstances and can't be properly evaluated against an absolute measure), the common philosophical patrimony of the west is thrown out the window. There's no way for a subjectivist, relativist atheist to have a serious dialogue with any educated person of faith.

Actually, I'd say that it's not possible for any educated person to have a serious dialogue with anyone who just makes up nonsense and whose claims reflect the prejudices in their head rather than the reality around them. Is there any reason not to include Suzanne Fortin in this class? I can't find one because her entire essay is an exercise in "how many false allegations can I make without a shred of evidence, logic, common sense, or basic decency before someone calls me on it?"

The lack of common ground between atheist and the faithful can only lead to conflict. I suspect it may lead to persecution.

And how keeps doing the persecuting of minority religions in the West? Christians. Suzanne Fortin is not expressing a valid fear of being persecuted herself by atheists, but rather a valid threat that atheists will be persecuting by Christians if they don't sit down and shut up. I wonder if the ambiguous nature of her statement was deliberate or just a Freudian slip.