MOTION #72: THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT RELIGION DOES MORE HARM THAN
GOOD
The last few years
have seen a renewed enthusiasm for atheism and secularism in much of the world
and debates between believers and non-believers have become ever more vigorous.
One distinction that is frequently made, particularly by theists, is that between
faith and religion. Whether such a distinction is meaningful or relevant does
not fall within the purview of this debate, which focusses entirely on religion
in the ordinary meaning of the word. In addition it will focus primarily on the
Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) purely on the basis that
they represent the largest of the world’s religious traditions.
Debates on religious
issues are notoriously challenging because the burdens of proof can vary hugely
and the term covers so many traditions and so many exceptions- that there
always seems to be a counterfactual available to any evidence-based argument.
Take, for example, the well publicised and widely discussed Roman Catholic
prohibition on contraception. From a purely secular perspective, the decision
makes no medical sense. However, from a religious standpoint it encourages
abstinence and faithfulness, which are seen as valuable normative goals in and
of themselves.
It would be wrong to
ignore the fact that debates on religious issues also have a tendency to be
heated and, in the case of public debates, can be frustrating because of the
reluctance of anyone in the room to criticise their own views. However,
precisely because of these factors, discussions on the value of religion for
excellent training and competitive debate topics. Debates on religion compel
speakers and adjudicators not only to question their own views but to focus on
the structure of arguments themselves, rather than relying on frameworks of
assumed knowledge, as can often be the case in political debates.
Usually, debates on
this motion run along the lines of the impact of religious organizations on
various moral issues and the groups affected by them. Abortion, gay marriage,
women’s rights and others tend to come up. A common theme also tends to be the
extent to which organisations are responsible for the actions of individuals
who profess that particular faith. There is a frequent claim that religions- or
the organisations that represent them- get to pick and choose. As a result, the
argument goes, Islam is not responsible for terrorist atrocities nor is the
Catholic Church culpable for child sex abuse. It’s an interesting distinction
and one that is likely to exercise both sides of the debate.
Efforts to play the
same argument the other way around against secularism do not really work, as it
is difficult to find an instance of acts comparable to religiously sponsored
intolerance being committed as a direct result of the actions of secularism.
Opposition teams often resort to the use of examples that break Goodwin’s law.
A desperate opposition team may discuss that securalist or atheist tendencies
of Hitler and Stalin – although rarely to any effect.
Ultimately this is a debate that is all about defining the parameters of
discussion. It is all too easy for it to degenerate into general assertions
about charity and bigotry and yet there is plenty of fact on both sides.
Pros
|
Cons
|
Religious organisations tend to act as a reactionary
pull on wider society opposing egalitarian reforms and developments. It is a basic tenant of all religions that they divide
humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ – believers and non-believers. However, the
divisions of society perceived by religious believers do not stop there, and
have a tendency to reflect the social and moral views of an earlier and far
less progressive age.
As well as condemning those who practice other faiths,
or who choose to follow no faith, they have fought, and continued to fight,
the expansion of the rights of women and of socially marginalised castes,
among other social groups. All of the major churches and sects have had to be
dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, and most of them are
still desperately trying to ignore the existence of modernity. While
justifying their political and moral positions through obtuse and
deliberately obscure interpretations of religious texts, obscure texts even
the mainstream interpretations of major religions are usually sexist,
frequently racist and almost universally homophobic.
Preventing access to contraception is the single
largest block to women getting out of poverty. There are many other examples
of the excesses and double standards of mainstream religion – too many examples to pick one.
|
All of the major religions
teach respect for others regardless of whether people agree with their
lifestyle or beliefs. That’s a huge advance on much of secular thought –
quite without the help of religious organisations, prejudice exists within
the worlds of business, politics and science. It seems a little unfair to
single out one area of life. At least religious organisations are based on
the belief that everybody should be treated with respect, which is not a
claim that could be made be most political creeds.
In addition there
are few social changes that have not involved religious radicals at their
foundation. Rightly or wrongly, major religious organisations tend to reflect
the views of the societies of which they are a part. It seems unfair to blame
the religious organisations for that.
It is also worth distinguishing between nations where
one religious belief is wide-spread and almost normative in nature, and those
where it is far more of a choice. If women or homosexuals chose to join a
church in a pluralist society, presumably they are not expecting to be a
priest.
|
Because religion combines dogmatic certainty with the
existence of the afterlife, violence and death is all too easy to justify. Particularly in the case of contemporary Islam,
although other historical examples could be referred to, the combination of
certainty and the promise of life after death is a sure route towards
violence. That said, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland
demonstrated this until recently; the Yugoslav wars between Catholics,
Orthodox and Muslims, both sides of the battle for Israel/Palestine and many
others in history could also be thrown into the mix.
Allowing people the opportunity to claim that “God’s on
our side” can be used to justify anything, especially when He appears to be
fighting on both sides.
|
Many people have been keen to wrap themselves in the
trappings of religion just as they do in the flag or in the rhetoric of one
political ideology or another.
Seeking to associate one’s opinions with one creed or
another is the oldest trick in the ideologue’s book.
The fact that men of violence claim to be doing things
in the name of peaceful religions tells us very little about the religions
themselves. In the modern world they is no reputable religious leader doing
so and those minority leaders who attempt to are generally condemned and
ostracized by the principle leaders of their faiths.
Laying responsibility for violence at the foot of
religion as a whole gives credibility to a handful of extremists – in much
the same way that conflating patriotism and fascism would.
|
Regardless of the protestations of some there is no
major religion that has not been involved in persecuting non-believers at
some point in its history and most still are. Although in much of the world the days of the crusades and the
inquisition may be gone, there are plenty of nations were religious
disobedience still is still punished harshly, summarily or extra-judicially.
In other countries, semi-official militias are left to enforce the minutiae
of religious law, although usually in such a way as to disadvantage women and
others already persecuted in society.
It should be noted that what tends to be the focus of
such persecution is a lack of adherence to an ultra-orthodox position. It is
frequently a cover for political or social prejudice. Charges of heresy or
apostasy are easy to level and nigh on impossible to disprove.
Even beyond these extremes, demands for religious
observance play out in US elections and, inexplicably, the views of religious
leaders are sought on areas where they really have no relevant expertise at
all, such as advances in medical progress. Those who disagree on matters such
as stem cell research or gay rights are, apparently, arguing with the
Almighty.
|
Secularism is a
peculiarly Western European concern. In most of the world religious
observance is taken very seriously. Denying people access to the guidance of
religious leaders flies in the face of allowing people freedom of choice and
conscience.
Secularists
routinely, and somewhat arrogantly, insist that their voices must be heard
but those of people of faith, despite representing the overwhelming view of
humanity, should be silenced.
Equally where there
are religious precepts incorporated within the law. One of the oldest systems
of secular, state arbitrated law- the common law of England- is based largely
on religious principles. For secularists to attack religious people for
criticizing difference, when all they are really saying is that most people
aren’t secularists, is the height of hypocrisy.
Most of the world takes religious observance very
seriously and expect their beliefs to be respected by their international
political leaders and others.
|
Religious education frequently has more to do with
indoctrination than anything else, as is seen in so-called schools where
reciting the Koran or Talmud passes for education or in privately funded
education in the UK and US where evolution is taught as ‘just another
theory’.
In terms of tackling poverty, there is no doubt that
many religious organisations- especially the Catholic Church- provide
enormous quantities of relief to the poverty directly caused by their
policies in the first place.
No single cause of poverty, especially among women, is
greater than denying women access to contraception, closely followed by
denying them access to education. As the woman is frequently the primary care
giver, their poverty affects their children.
|
Religious
organisations are by far the largest providers of charity in the world. Whether sending food support in famine zones,
providing education, hospices or a vast range of other charitable activities,
religious organisations are streets ahead. In addition they frequently are
the only organisations willing to go into certain high risk areas throughout
the world.
I addition in many
sociogeographic areas, especially those of urban poverty, priests may be the
only professional that many hundreds of people can access. Churches and
mosques are frequently the only place of sanctuary and peace.
In addition religious organisations have historically
been the first to provide education and healthcare with nation states
following their example.
|
The simple reality is that religious organisations in
most of the world are all too willing to involve themselves in ecumenical
politics and issue declarations on economic matters. Equally, presenting the
absurd and grotesque wealth and power of the world’s major religions as
having anything to do with quiet spiritualism is, frankly, absurd.
In some circumstances, major religions can provide international perspective but,
all too often, that simply means importing the most reactionary position
available – African Anglicans on gay ordination in the US; the mediaeval
views from Islam in the Middle East into discussions on the rights of women
in European migrant communities. Generally this brand of internationalism
simply reopens social battles that were settled a century and more ago in the
West.
|
Religious
organisations remind societies and the world that there are other important
things in life beyond economics and that moral and other concerns should be
taken into account in public life. In a world consumed by the belief that the only thing in life that
genuinely matters is money, religious bodies serve as a welcome reminder that
other activities- besides “wealth creation”- can be meaningful and valuable
too. In addition to promoting morality and spirituality within society they
have also, historically, been sponsors of great art and music.
The fact that religions are also international
organisations bring perspectives that believers in some countries may find
uncomfortable, but which act as a reminder of more universal truths –
primarily, altruism.
|
It is an interesting defence of a position to note that
people only really turn to it when they are emotionally vulnerable and their
mental faculties are at their weakest. It’s scarcely a clarion defence of the
benefits or religious observance or practice.
It is no doubt true that when we need an explanation
for the apparently inexplicable- the death of a child, say- there is more
comfort to be found in the ministrations of a cleric than that of a
statistician. However that in no way makes the cleric, or their creed, right.
The cold hard truth is that personal and national tragedies
do have logical explanations, it just happens that we may not want to hear
them at the time. However, any other credo which used other peoples emotional
weaknesses to push their view of the world and the universe would be treated
with contempt. For some reason, religion gets a pass.
|
Religious ceremonies
and organisations provide solace and celebration for the great changes in
life such as birth, marriage and death, there is democratic support for this
around the world. At times of great
need or celebration, religious communities and organisations are often the
only organisations that seem fit to the task of marking them.
This principle
applies both in people’s own lives, with the birth of a child or the death of
a loved one, but it can also apply to national events. At times of great
tragedy it is frequently the main religious community that is expected to sum
up the mood of a nation and to provide explanation and succour. It is
difficult to see how a politician, jurist or academic could fulfill that role
so well.
It is interesting that although we may ignore the
day-to-day role of religion in society and in communities, at moments of
great trial, or great celebration, it is to religious rites that most people
turn.
|
0 Comments