Community: Real Life

No faith, no morals?


Vicky loves books, TV and Radio 4. She tries hard to keep up with current affairs but is easily distracted by anything vaguely funny. She's obsessed with comedy and goes to see stand-up shows as often as she can afford to.

Vicky is a strong believer in the live and let live theory when it comes to religious beliefs.

Let me be straight with you, I'm not religious. Not even slightly. I'm genuinely amazed that so many people have the capacity to trust absolutely in the wisdom of a higher being, and the determination to live their lives by the morals set down by their faith. If you're religious you will expect others to be respectful of your faith. Of course you do, you absolutely should. But why shouldn't atheists expect the same in return?

In Canada, I was once approached by an elderly gentleman handing out leaflets. I stopped, said hello and smiled politely, but declined a leaflet. As my friend and I walked away he yelled after us: "Sinners. You will burn in hell." If that's the case then the verbal abuse is surely superfluous. Not being religious, that threat held little menace, but I do hate being cast as immoral simply because I don't subscribe to a religion.

I would never tell a person of any religion that what they believe is wrong or stupid. And, in the past, when questioned on my own views I've simply said that I regard myself as an atheist and put my faith in scientific theory. At which point, the conversation has changed. Suddenly I find myself being informed of the 'truth' and explained why science is either 'God's tool for creation' or just 'another theory that can be explained'. If I took the same approach in arguing against religion I would be accused of intolerance or mockery.

Street preachers, door-to-door missionaries, indeed those who hand out leaflets are usually polite, friendly and respectful. They are dedicated to their faith and want to teach others. I have no problem with this. I understand that religion may give people a particular sense of purpose and a sense of morality, but I don't believe that atheists and agnostics lack these traits. What causes me immense frustration is when my beliefs, and with them my opinions on certain moral matters, are dismissed out of hand simply because they lack a 'spiritual' element. Apparently I don't understand the abortion debate because I'm not religiously informed. Well according to a 2006 Guardian poll, 63% of Britain's population say they are not religious and I refuse to accept that this majority has no legitimate view on abortion or indeed any other issue. If you are against abortion on religious grounds, or on any other grounds for that matter, then by all means don't have one, but it's wrong to tell others how to behave based on a belief they don't share.

"In the media a person's religion is often used as an indicator of their high morals, but why is a person's religion important even when it has nothing to do with the event being reported?"

In the case of politics, Blair famously stated that he would be judged by God for his actions regarding Iraq; a defence that is impossible for an atheist to accept, as it allows individuals to reject moral criticism from people who they claim are immoral based on their lack of faith alone. Secondly if people can be defended on the basis that they are religious then surely that puts non-believers at a severe disadvantage? Surely an individual's religion doesn't affect their capacity to do wrong?

On the plus side, at least British politics is largely secular. Not so in the USA where, despite being constitutionally secular, religion has come to play a central role in politics, both from the perspective of the electorate and from the level of influence evangelical groups have. I'm sure religion and democracy can co-exist, but to make faith a central influence on politics denies non-religious citizens the equal status they deserve. This inequality was made abundantly clear in 1992, when then President George H.W. Bush stated: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." An incredible statement from a nation that styles itself as a world leader of freedom and democracy. 

In the media a person's religion is often used as an indicator of their high morals, but why is a person's religion important even when it has nothing to do with the event being reported? For instance, the Madeline McCann case included many reports on her parents' Catholicism. Why was this of any importance? It surely wasn't needed for the public to feel sympathy?

Surely tolerance and mutual respect should be universal in a civilised society, where individuals can live any lifestyle that doesn't harm another person. After all I don't have to be a Christian to know that murder is wrong. Not believing in hell doesn't mean I'm without a conscience - it works perfectly well without fear of eternal damnation. In the words of Einstein: "Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Angry? Submit a rant


Bookmark with:What are these?

Also on TheSite.org