There are numerous religious believers who are convinced that their religion, and perhaps a few other religions, should be so privileged in society that some forms of criticism of those religions should be made illegal. Similar criticism of other religions and other ideologies would continue to be permitted; only certain religions would be exempt from the normal standards of discourse.

Elaine Freidman writes in the Humanst Network News:

Considering the publishing of the Danish cartoons criticizing Islam “a blatant attempt to inflame religious hatred,” [delegates from Bangladesh, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates] called for mechanisms to curb criticism of religion by claiming that criticism of religion is the same as incitement to religious hatred.

In other words, they want most, if not all, criticism of religion to stop. Clearly, this is a violation of freedom of expression. How can one equate the condemnation of stoning a woman to death for adultery under sharia law with the promotion of genocide?

Ultimately, such people really don’t believe in freedom of expression because such freedom can be used too readily to challenge traditions and traditional structures of power. Those in charge, and especially religious leaders, are threatened by such challenges because they have to defend themselves publicly and on an equal playing field. Unable to use force or the power of the state to suppress dissent, many simply don’t know what to do — bluster and threats are all they have learned in the past and thus all they can manage now.

In response, Roy Brown, head of the International Humanist and Ethical Union delegation to the UN in Geneva, released a statement. Brown stated “The right to question religion and to freely express one’s views on religious matters is a human right. Human beings have human rights, religions do not. This Council has a solemn duty to protect people -- not ideas, religions, customs, beliefs or traditional practices, especially when they are used as justification for the abuse of human rights. It is the believer, not the belief, that must be protected.”

This is an important distinction which many religious believers do nor or will not recognize. While the believer has rights to belief and expression which must be protected, religion itself has no “rights” which must be respected or protected. This means that government has neither the obligation nor the authority to “protect” religion from criticism, attacks, or even ridicule. Governments do not exist in order to make people feel better about their ideological positions or to protect ideologies from outside forces.

Too many believers imagine that if they are offended by what others say, then their religion is being attacked and must be protected — not by them, but they the force and power of the state. Such an attitude betrays the fact that such believers realize that they are incapable of defending their religion and, moreover, that the use of words and arguments is inadequate to the challenges they are facing. They realize that they have no arguments to make their case, so they must resort to suppression and oppression.

 

Religious Privilege & Intolerance:

• Religious Intolerance & Bigotry
• Religious Privilege
• Christian Privilege
• Christian Supremacy