Whatever you do, don't tell me I'm wrong: On the right to judge

March 2, 11:10 AMSecularism ExaminerPaul Fidalgo

Previous Next

3 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Secularism Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Political correctness is a popular punching bag. It is a genuine problem when otherwise well-intentioned, unwritten rules of rhetorical etiquette prevent necessary truths from being spoken, or are enforced to such a degree as to equal censorship, but of course crying 'political correctness' can also be a cheap excuse for making bigotry or willful ignorance acceptable and pseudo-righteous. Excepting such despicable circumstances, however, the problem of political correctness -- of Tolerance Gone Wild -- perhaps is never so apparent as in the discourse surrounding religion and irreligion.

In previous column, I addressed how "offense" -- hurt feelings -- is considered reason good enough to maintain utter silence regarding disagreements about people's religious beliefs. Offending someone, in this mode of thinking, amounts to a kind of assault, as though it were a legitimate crime. Thus, we have absurd, unfathomably stupid new UN directives that call for "blasphemy" to be made illegal, or riots over a newspaper column.

It seems to me quite obvious how disastrous are such laws and the attitudes that generate them, and how they are in complete opposition to the ideal, no, the human right, of freedom of expression. But do a little poking around the InterTubes, and you'll be surprised how little coverage this issue has received in the mainstream media. Most famously of late, Lou Dobbs railed against the UN anti-blasphemy resolution on his CNN program along with Christopher Hitchens (video at the end of this post) -- though Dobbs seemed more interested in denigrating the UN as an institution, with the anti-blasphemy resolution serving only as one more example of its problems. Fine, though. At least the issue was addressed in front of a lot of Americans.

But as I said, railing against "overtolerance" is easy to do, especially for talking heads like Dobbs, a fellow who has never let political correctness get in the way of his mania over Mexicans. One would hope that we could turn to the more socially progressive end of the political spectrum for some wisdom, the realm of American discourse in which fact is valued over feeling. Right?

Witness this clip from my beloved Rachel Maddow, the television personality I trust most to break complex, dizzying issues down to their components; to see through the fogs of enthusiasm or bluster to get to the truth. After a smart, solid interview with Left Behind author Tim LaHaye and a clever monologue on the beliefs around which his work centers, Maddow (have I mentioned I love her?) said this: 

None of us have the right to judge anybody else’s religious beliefs . . .

Truly? Not only do we not have the right to criticize people's claims about the nature of existence or their treatment of human beings under the auspices of revealed dogmas, but even a hero of the fact-loving left is telling us that we can't even think that someone is off their rocker if they believe in reincarnation, the societal benefits of genital mutilation, transubstantiation, winged horses, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Maddow almost certainly did not intend her remark to be taken to the lengths to which I am now pushing it, but it remains indicative of a mindset that places beliefs that deal in the supernatural as off-limits to anything but the most neutered analysis. (Just take a trip over to the entry at Friendly Atheist on this subject, and see the sprawling comments utterly aghast at Maddow's assertion.) 

Now allow me to take this a step further with this piece from the paper of my alma mater, the GW Hatchet. George Washington University has a burgeoning organization for nonbelievers and doubters known as the Skeptics. See if you can catch the subtle problem sentence: 

Organized and founded by senior John Beers last semester, Skeptics' second official purpose is to "challenge believers in gods, psychics and all other supernatural occurrences, with arguments based on scientific evidence, logic and reason," he said.

Though this aim sounds like it might provoke the wrath of many religious organizations, Beers said the main goal of his organization is to open up awareness of free thought and inspire discussions between religions.

"It is not about proving people wrong," he said. "It's just about talking about beliefs and challenging others for why they believe what they do."

Perhaps I read too much into this, but I feel there is a soft self-censorship implied here that is indicative of my larger complaint. (I don't mean the following as a beating-up on Beers any more than I mean to beat up on Maddow, which is precisely not at all.) Because I think it is about proving people wrong. Otherwise, are we as nonbelievers, rationalists, and secularists not simply sitting in a circle, merely agreeing with each other over coffee and bagels? "Challenging others" is an important and noble goal, but if we have ruled out persuasion, what is the purpose of challenging beliefs? To what end?

Religions have no problem with the idea of changing minds on their own behalf. They call it conversion. If a missionary travels to convert people of another culture with a different belief system, or when a Christian convinces a non-Christian friend that Christ really is the answer, are they not "proving people wrong" in their own minds? Isn't the assumption that members of the other religion were "wrong" before the converter made their case?

Nonbelievers and religious critics are forced to work under different rules. A Christian group can form to spread the word of Jesus and no one bats an eye. Likewise for the beliefs and protestations of other religions. No one begrudges them making their case, because of the well-intentioned and completely necessary tenets of genuine tolerance, pluralism, and free expression. We must have it no other way. But a nonreligious group is forced to hedge. They can "challenge" beliefs (code that implies that believers will only have their faith strengthened thanks to the wily skeptic's gentle prodding), but for a secularist group to admit to actively trying to change minds, to convert (or "de-convert"), would be unacceptable. It would be offensive. It would be "judging."  

Just as corporations are not really people, neither are religions, ideas, or beliefs. Human beings are the units to which we owe respect, not their ideas. Bad, crazy ideas should be named as such. We should be able to say that a claim about how a person will suffer if they do not buy into a certain sectarian dogma is harmful or absurd whenever it is so. We should be able to say that a belief that allows people to be oppressed, tortured, silenced, mutilated, or subjugated is, in fact, a really bad thing. And we should be able to say it without the ridiculous baggage of being labeled judgmental, intolerant, or offensive. And it certainly shouldn't be used as a justification for riots, threats, incarceration, or violence.

Some things should be judged. Some things must not be tolerated. Sometimes feelings will get hurt. That has to be okay. 

 As promised, our cited videos. Dobbs and Hitchens first, followed by the most excellent Ms. Maddow.