A humanist perspective on freedom and religion

Based on several opinion articles and comments on various websites, it appears that there is quite a bit of misinformation (and hostility) regarding why atheists/secular humanists are opposed to Ten Commandments monuments, religious shrines, etc. on public land.

Much of the discussion seems to center around freedom of religion, i.e., that secular humanists are out to either destroy or restrain religious expression. We will show that the first charge is largely a myth and that the second charge is accurate only in certain, well justified, contexts. First, it seems important to discuss “rights” in general.

Individual rights are delineated in our founding documents (e.g., the Bill of Rights, which includes both individual rights, their limits, and limits on the state), through judicial interpretation and/or through public policy (which are often then challenged by the courts). While individual rights should be respected, they are almost always limited in some way. They are limited because in order to live in a cohesive and just society, individual rights must be constrained by government when they oppose, limit or restrain the rights of others. On the other hand, governments also have limits both in terms of what they are permitted to do and in what they are not permitted to do.

Some everyday examples that illustrate the checks and balances between individual rights and the limits on those rights that are required to protect others are: People can play music in their homes, but not music that is so loud that it disturbs their neighbors; individuals can own a firearm, but they are limited as far as when, how and where it is carried or discharged; people can drink alcohol, but are limited by their age and how much they can consume before driving a car; and people can speak their mind with their voice or in print, but they can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded room or make libelous or slanderous statements.

The almost endless list of this evolving system of checks and balances between individuals and between individual rights and government limits on those rights fills the pages of U.S. law books. The point is that most accept (sometimes begrudgingly) that a good life in a good society necessarily requires accepting a balance between unbridled free expression and state limitations of that expression.

Religious freedom as expressed through the Establishment Clause is another example and it is given a wide berth. Within the clause, individuals thankfully maintain the right to choose and practice their faith or to not do so at all, without government intrusion or coercion (with some exclusions, e.g., religiously motivated child neglect, human sacrifices, etc.) Governments on the other hand are prohibited from establishing any religion, which has been interpreted as maintaining neutrality by not promoting, endorsing or otherwise furthering any religious message. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers (and subsequent reinforcement by the courts) established a reasonable balance, but unfortunately, while there are many “believers” who respect this necessary balance, there is also a group of people who disagree for various reasons.

Whatever the reasons, the latter group’s efforts need to be continually challenged. Specifically, it needs to be communicated that there is NO right written anywhere that allows any religion to use government power, force, resources or land to evangelize or otherwise further its message. Period. The use of government in evangelical efforts is especially egregious and destructive because we know through past experiences that there is a high likelihood of coercion, abuse and a chilling effect on freedom of conscience. This is what “freedom from religion” means — the freedom from imposition of rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs.

This is a good thing — for Christians, people of other faiths, and non-believers! It is only through respecting and enforcing this limit that we have the religious freedom we currently enjoy. Without it, we’d soon find our way back to early colonial/state laws — some of which literally made it (somewhat ironically when considering the Jesus Shrine) illegal to practice Catholicism. We’d be no better off than our American ancestors were before they left the shores of foreign countries with little or no church/state separation.

Regarding the two charges stated at the beginning, while secular humanists generally believe that they are, and others would be, better off without supernatural beliefs, we are not out to destroy religion or its expression. We believe that individuals (with some safety limits as mentioned above) should be able to freely choose and practice their religious faith and that this can only be realized where there is no overt or covert government coercion. As patriotic Americans who realize the benefits of church/state separation and the dangers of its deterioration, we will strongly and assertively attempt to block any and all efforts (whether “well intentioned” or not) by any religion, religious sect or religiously affiliated group, to use the government as an evangelical tool. Our local Ten Commandments and Jesus Shrine issues are just two examples, out of hundreds, of ongoing challenges to the religious freedom of all Americans across the nation.

The Flathead Area Secular Humanist Association wishes to encourage the continued strength of our government leaders to lead in ways consistent with their constitutional oaths and limits, even in the face of opposing, and again, well-intentioned, majority religious opinions — most pertinent here: to not utilize their public office to express or forward, through public policy, their or others’ personal religious beliefs. We also wish to thank all organizations (whether local or national), and local supporters for their courageous, steady and vigorous support of religious liberties for all Americans, including non-religious minorities here and across the nation.

E Pluribus Unum — “Out of Many, One.”

Ian Cameron, of Whitefish, writes on behalf of the Flathead Area Secular Humanist Association, which claims more than 50 members.