This article is part of our ‘Timeless Pieces’ series of summer reading, featuring articles from our former hardcopy Australian Rationalist journal. The article was originally published in the Autumn 2010 edition of the journal.
I suspect that there would be far greater respect for inter-faith initiatives if religious leaders recognised the capacity for humans to do good without god’s guiding hand.
Religious leaders tend to gloss over this facet of faith by focusing on the capacity for religion to change the world through compassion, humility, love and peace.
Consider the claim made by Sister Joan Chittister at last year’s Parliament of World Religions in Melbourne:
“If the faith communities brought their faith to bear on public policy we would change the world over-night, we would double the resources avail-able, we would bring a new perspective?”
Although well meaning, such a claim demeans the many people who find moral strength and guidance in areas that are not occupied by god.
The bigger problem with inter-faith advocates is that they emphasise the value of diversity and tolerance yet view those who are free of faith as morally unfit to participate in their forums.
Inter-faith organisers may be praised for implementing a common ethic within the intra-religious community, but atheists ought to receive greater praise for including all who value rational thought, reason and truth in their forums.
When the chairman of last year’s Parliament of World Religion called for an inter-religious community “where people gather to build a new, just, peaceful and sustainable world”, I could not help but see it as another attempt by faith groups to fence morality off from those who are capable of contributing to just and peaceful causes without religious counsel.
It becomes an even bigger concern when political leaders seek to imbue public moral discourse with a spiritual hue, particularly at a time when religion is not as significant to individuals and society as it once was.
It is certainly a concern when political leaders look to god and the church for guidance on matters relating to voluntary euthanasia, stem cell research, women’s reproductive rights and same-sex marriage.
We often see this in our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who a year before becoming leader penned a lengthy essay for The Monthly magazine explaining how his Christian values inform and shape his vision for the nation.
We saw it in Joe Hockey when he delivered a speech on god and politics a number of weeks before giving the opposition leadership a tilt. And we see it in the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, when he explains how his political thinking has been shaped by Catholic social teachings.
This is not to suggest that ethical discussion should be stripped of scripture and spirituality. It’s just that it should not be confined to it. Public moral discourse, especially in a culturally diverse society such as ours, needs to begin from a religiously neutral base, not the other way around. This is essentially the principle to which atheists adhere. And it is the principle that pluralistic secular societies are based on.
Inhabitants of such societies are free to practice their faith in their homes, cathedrals, mosques, temples, modern mega-churches and gated churches in secretive locations. People of non-faith are also free to go about their personal business unmolested by religion.
It becomes an even bigger concern when political leaders seek to imbue public moral discourse with a spiritual hue, particularly at a time when religion is not as significant to individuals and society as it once was.
Although this social arrangement demands tolerance between people of faith and non-faith, it does not prohibit argument between them. In fact, secular society requires it. Unity in diversity of opinion is, after all, the bedrock upon which secular liberal democracies are based.
When a person of faith publicly espouses the virtues of his or her faith, then those who are in earshot have a right to speak back. If an unbeliever seeks to discredit a faith group, then those who are aggrieved by the criticism are free to argue back. This is essentially the strength of a secular society.
Secular societies are akin to the ancient Athenian ecclesia, where free adults were called together to critically discuss, argue and propose action on legal, social and moral matters. This open public forum serves as a sharp contrast to the cloistered centres of faith administered by religious leaders in accordance to religious doctrine.
Religious leaders and indeed politicians who invoke god when addressing ethical issue are essentially telling us that decency, morality and ethical conduct resides with the faithful. This is hardly a display of social inclusiveness that democratic secular societies pride themselves on.
A true demonstration of tolerance, fairness and social inclusion can be found at Melbourne’s atheist convention, where freethinkers from all over the globe gathered to discuss issues of justice, peace and harmony with people who place reason and rationality ahead of faith.
Such gatherings are, after all, far more productive than the one-dimensional conversation that people of faith have been enjoying. Inter-faith dialogue is, after all, like talking to oneself, which can’t be too healthy for the individual or society.
This is not say that atheists do not enjoy discussing morality with people of faith. As we have seen with the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, atheists love getting fired up over religion. And they do so because they have nothing to lose other than the argument at hand. People of faith, however, risk losing much more, which is probably why they shut atheists out of their conversations.
Photo by Agê Barros on Unsplash.