A couple of weeks ago, there was a story in the news about a Texas high school track team that was disqualified from the state meet because one of their athletes pointed toward heaven after doing particularly well in his qualifying run. Apparently, it broke their rule against “excessive celebration.”
Despite being an atheist, I don’t twirl my mustache in maniacal glee when I hear about things like this. Now, hopefully, this really didn’t have anything to do with the kid referencing his religious beliefs and was actually only about the celebration rule. Still, it would be nice for common sense to prevail in situations like these.
But we can find other examples of people being persecuted for their religious beliefs in modern, secular society. In France, laws have been put in place that prohibit people from wearing large symbols of their religious beliefs “in the spirit of secularism.” This means that the hijab (an Islamic headscarf for women) has been outlawed. While I get the desire to encourage secularism in an effort to minimize the religious differences between people, I think it tends to only drive people closer to fundamentalism. After all, religions love martyrs, and you can’t have martyrs without persecution.
I think that real religious freedom means that people should be able to express their religious beliefs without fear of persecution. We may not always like what other people believe, but that’s precisely why the freedom to express ourselves must be defended — because there are always people who would like to stop it. When we allow people to express themselves freely, we start to take away their suspicion that we’re out to get them. That makes it possible for some of them to begin seeing us as fellow human beings, not infidels.
Furthermore, you can’t legislate morality. I agree that the hijab is degrading to women. But for women who sincerely believe that they must wear it to be pleasing to Allah, we’re doing them no favors by outlawing it, because such a law causes them to sin. How should they react to that? All we’re doing is presenting them with a very clear choice — “you should obey God rather than man.” Is that the kind of ultimatum we want to give people? At best, they’ll simply withdraw from society so that they aren’t forced to violate their consciences. So instead of taking part in the larger world where they can learn about other points of view, they’ll be left in an echo chamber where the lines between “us” and “them” are very clear and defined.
Instead, we should welcome people into society regardless of their beliefs, and hope that in time they begin to recognize that tolerance of one another is the only real path forward.
Finding Truth 
When thinking about the conviction of a person’s beliefs.
I think these are valuable questions whether a person holds theist or atheist beliefs.
1. If everyone else you knew turned away and stopped believing what you believed, would you still believe?
2. Furthermore, if some of these same people even treated you differently, harshly and excluded you because of your convictions, would you still believe?
I think a person’s answer says something of why they believe.
Whether a person has a belief based on the social support it brings, from the group reinforcement, the apologetics, or whether a person’s belief is grounded beyond this. Or maybe it is a mix of all these, as well as grounding beyond them.
LikeLike
Sorry I meant to write,
I think these are valuable questions whether or not* a person holds theist or atheist beliefs.
think a person’s answer might say something on whether a person beliefs are grounded beyond the social support, group cohesion and apologetics it brings.
LikeLike
I think those are awesome questions to ask Ryan! I think about those things when it comes to my own beliefs, and I even wonder whether or not I answer them correctly given what I believe about the strength of things like confirmation bias.
LikeLike
Nate, just to clarify something I don’t think I said very well in my last comment last night… I would define religion as man’s attempt to get to God, whereas I think Jesus came to show us that God is determined to get to us – but because of love, not because of right/wrong or judgment/punishment, none of that.
portal001, I love your questions! For me #1. has already happened in a way. I find myself still believing, albeit quite differently than the group I used to be a part of. And #2. has also happened to me. The treatment did not change my core belief in God, but radically altered my understanding of church.
One of the things I’ve learned through my continuing journey is that no matter what group you are in the problems and issues are the same (see my post on believing the unbelievable for a short blurb on ‘people being people’). I think Nate pointed that out last Christmas when he found atheists criticizing other atheists who celebrated the holiday. A good example of the legalism of MAN, completely apart from religion. 🙂
LikeLike
Ryan, two outstanding questions! May I repost them to my blog?
LikeLike
Howie, thanks, I sometimes wonder what I would do, I’d like to think that if I had a very important conviction, that I would still trust that conviction even if I was mistreated for it. But I really don’t know for sure how I would respond, since I’ve never been in such a situation.
JudahFirst, thats really encouraging that you still hold to what you believe is most important, despite going through such experiences, I suppose thats where faith and integrity come in.
Nan, no worries, if you like 🙂
LikeLike
Sorry I’ve been away for a few days.
JudahFirst,
I think you bring up an important point about the cases in which someone’s religious freedom begins to infringe on the rights of others. With the hijab, I think it’s tricky. If a Muslim man is forcing his wife or daughter to wear the hijab against their will, then there should be some legal recourse for that woman. However, I’d be willing to bet that in most cases, the women also believe they should wear it. And the problem I have with the French ban (assuming I understand it correctly) is that it doesn’t take such nuances into consideration. If a woman feels she should wear it, she should be allowed to — at least, that’s how I see it.
But on every other point you made, I think we’re in total agreement. 🙂
LikeLike
Ryan, just wanted to echo what everyone else has said and let you know that I also think you raised some important questions. Thanks!
LikeLike
Nate, I guess my real issue with “freedom of practice” is the whole idea of one thing leading to another. The woman wearing the hijab may indeed be wearing it willingly … just as she may decide (in the course of her religious journey) to wear a suicide bomb quite willingly in the future. This is my issue with “practice”.
By the French banning the seemingly benign practice of wearing a hijab, they are in effect saying no to the less benign practices of the muslim faith (to which tolerance of the hijab may lead).
It’s so interesting that I am arguing for government control in this matter since I am a total follower of Ayn Rand!! Probably I’m playing devil’s advocate in this case, because deep down I don’t believe any government should dictate anyone’s actions (as long as those actions do not harm someone else). But I also know what religious fundamentalism looks like (having been steeped in it for so many years) and how dangerous it can be to those inside and outside of it.
Bottom line: if a society as a whole (assume the French PEOPLE, the COMMUNITY, not the gov’t) says “no” to a religious practice (like wearing the hijab), then the people within that community should submit to the decisions of the community or move somewhere else. I would say that is a blanket “rule” for life within any given community. In other words, my freedom is limited by the decision of the community as a whole (which means if my neighborhood won’t support me in getting my back-yard music-blasting neighbor to stop playing the music, I guess I’m either screwed or I sell my house and move). 😉
LikeLike
Fair point about possibly encouraging people to move if they don’t like it. As far as suicide bombings go, I imagine most everyone already knows they’re illegal 😉
LikeLike
Except for the suicide bombers. 😉
LikeLike
Okay, maybe they know and just don’t give a rip…
LikeLike
Oh no, I think they know it too.
LikeLike
Sorry for the last comment being so long, have not had a chance to get back on here.. Was trying to cover too much at one time and I don’t think this site allows you to delete comments once you have posted them lol Just to try and stay on the subject you guys are talking about currently and not to get into every single thing on this site I am still taking in and currently overwhelmed by as you can tell by my previous post lol I believe religious freedom is like any other freedom like one of you said if it imposes on other’s rights than it is not ok and it is no longer a personal freedom. I have seen every religion and atheists all trying to either force their belief or non belief on people or prevent others from practicing theirs even when it does not impose on their personal rights. Unfortunately like everything else I don’t think it is unique to any one belief. I personally believe abortion should be illegal but not based on my Christian beliefs alone but because of evidence I have seen and personally experienced that makes me feel it is personally infringing on that baby’s personal rights to practice it even if it is ok according to someone else’s religious beliefs. Not to mention the father’s rights in some cases. However, I did see someone say they would rather have Christianity forced on them than Islam for certain reasons. I personally don’t believe Christianity can be forced on you. People try to force it on you but Christianity requires a personal choice by the person to have a personal relationship with God. No one can even 100 percent tell if you are a Christian as it is something in your heart and personal. Certain practices of Christianity as with any other religion can be forced but not actually being a Christian.
LikeLike
@ Nate
“But for women who sincerely believe that they must wear it to be pleasing to Allah, we’re doing them no favors by outlawing it, because such a law causes them to sin. How should they react to that? All we’re doing is presenting them with a very clear choice — “you should obey God rather than man.” Is that the kind of ultimatum we want to give people? At best, they’ll simply withdraw from society so that they aren’t forced to violate their consciences. So instead of taking part in the larger world where they can learn about other points of view, they’ll be left in an echo chamber where the lines between “us” and “them” are very clear and defined.”
I agree with your above reasoning.
Thanks
LikeLike
Thank you 🙂
LikeLike