Boudry, Maarten

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

50        Free InquIry     February / March 2017       secularhumanism.orgTHE HUMANIST SOAPBOXAbolish the Freedom of Religion! A View from Europe  Maarten BoudryI am rather fond of most of our free­doms. But one I’d like to get rid of is the freedom of religion. At best. that principle is completely superfluous, but in most cases it’s also discrimina­tory, arbitrary, and absurd.The principle of “freedom of re­ligion” is enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights and the First Amendment of the U.S. Con­stitution. The constitution of my own country, Belgium, has a special article devoted to it (we call it “freedom of worship”), as do the constitutions of many other countries. Nonetheless, I think this principle should be abol­ished.Why? All freedoms to which reli­gious believers are entitled are already secured in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially the freedom of thought and conscience and the freedom of assembly. Why must our secular constitutions include a special principle called “freedom of religion,” with some (as in Belgium) mentioning other beliefs and convictions almost as an afterthought? All opinions should be free, whether they’re called “reli­gious” or not.The special treatment of religion, to be sure, has historical roots. Our liberal principles originated in an era in which people were persecuted for their religious beliefs, by—it should be noted—people with a different set of religious beliefs. In a more mature liberalism, however, as developed by thinkers such as Spinoza and John Stuart Mill, religious liberty falls within the broader concept of freedom of expression. “Freedom of religion” is a relic from an era of religious intoler­ance, in which the most common rea­son why people smashed each other’s heads was that they worshipped the wrong god. Nonreligious differences of opinion simply didn’t provoke such hatred and wholesale slaughter.But is there any harm in the redun­dant, separate mention of a freedom of religion in our constitutions and human rights declarations? Let’s com­pare it with the freedom of gastronom­ical beliefs or the freedom of opinions expressed on Thursdays. It is obviously superfluous but still harmless, right?Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. According to a common misconcep­tion—that everyone is free to express, of course—religion deserves special privileges. All opinions are free, so goes the argument, but religious ones are freer than others. You always need to “respect” faith. After all, isn’t there such a thing as freedom of religion?Rather than just being redundant, this interpretation of the freedom of religion is blatantly discriminatory. Take the Belgian Council of State’s recent recommendation that a gen­eral ban on the unstunned slaughter of animals infringes on the religious liberty of Muslims and Jews, who are compelled by their faith to practice rit­ual slaughter without stunning. In this case, religion is given a free pass. The very same act is deemed illegal when committed by one group (atheists) but permitted for different groups (Mus­lims and Jews). As Brian Leiter argued in his book Why Tolerate Religion?, there is no convincing reason why religious beliefs and practices should be entitled to special privileges and exemptions from generally applicable laws. If you follow that line of reason­ing, then a special principle called “freedom of religion” is inherently unfair and discriminating.Moreover, what exactly is “re­ligion,” anyway? By enshrining the ill­conceived notion of freedom of re­ligion in our constitution, our poor state obliges itself to practice cul­tural anthropology and even theology. Does every authentic religion have a creation story or a belief in a kind of af­terlife? Is a supreme being or religious service required? Is a holy book an es­sential ingredient? None of these char­acteristics is culturally universal. By the way, how many people do you need to form a religion? Is a single prophet’s voice in the wilderness sufficient?Take our Eurocentric fixation on sacred books. The Qur’an contains vague stipulations about covering one’s body. Muslims frequently invoke those verses to demand the right to wear a headscarf anywhere. Ironically, many of those who favor a ban on the headscarf in European countries get bogged down in exegesis no less. “All opinions should  be free, whether  they’re called  ‘religious’ or not.”secularhumanism.org     February / March 2017       Free InquIry        51Now you can purchase a full run of Free InquIry back issues—every issue ever published, from Vol. 1 No. 1 (1980)  to today, in the permanence of the original print. Over 160 issues in all—at an impressive 50 percent savings.Normally priced above $940, now you can own a complete back set for only $475.    This price includes shipping and handling to U.S. addresses!As a Matter of Fact, You Can Have It All.Please send_______ FREE INQUIRY back issue sets at $475.00 each.       Total amount enclosed: _________________Name_____________________________________________________________________________________________Address ___________________________________________________________________________________________City _________________________________________ State ______________________________ ZIP _____________Daytime phone (            ) ______________________________E-mail ______________________________________L  Check enclosed (U.S. checks only drawn on U.S. bank and denominated in U.S. dollars. Payable to the Council for Secular Humanism.)Charge my:    L American Express    L Discover    L MasterCard    L Visa    Credit card # _____________________________________________  Exp. ________________ / _________________Signature _________________________________________________Mail to: Council Products  Council for Secular Humanism  P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664.  Credit-card orders may be faxed  to (716) 636-1733 or called in toll-free to (800) 458-1366  from 9 AM to 5 PM Eastern Time.(Shipping and handling to U.S. addresses included. For shipping quotes outside the U.S. call (800) 458-1366 from 9am to 5pm Eastern Time.)Does the text really say one should cover one’s head or is the chest area enough? Does the ban violate reli­gious freedom or not?But that discussion is absurd. Be­lievers enjoy the right to adopt an original or even ridiculous interpreta­tion of any text. Consider this: Why would an ancient book qualify as a criterion in the first place? Suppose a Muslim woman claims that it’s her innermost conviction that Allah desires her to wear that headscarf, regardless of what the Qur’an or imam says. Perhaps an archangel personally whis­pered it into her ear. Whoever doesn’t recognize that as “religion” bows to the might of the majority and discrim­inates against religious innovators and minorities.And think of it the other way around: suppose the Qur’an stipulates, literally and unambiguously, that women should walk around in burqas everywhere, with just a tiny slit for one single eye, as a Saudi cleric recently suggested. Would that force the state to admit: “The book says so, therefore we have to allow it?” Is astrology a religion? Naturism? Rastafarianism? Everyone who fancies doing so can appropriate the label “re­ligion” and all its attendant privileges, because there is no reputable anthro­pological definition of religion anyway. This is exactly what Scientology godfa­ther L. Ron Hubbard did. After he had been sued for illicit practice of medi­cine, he rebranded his whole doctrinal shebang as a “religion,” as a result of which Scientology (previously Dianet­ics) nowadays still enjoys tax­exempt status in the United States—because it’s a “religion,” you see.If that’s how it works, this atheist cannot lag behind. The Almighty has just informed me, through my sensus divinitatis, that this article contains the infallible and final revelation concern­ing all religious issues: All of thee shall respect my religion! The very paper on which this revelation is printed is holy. Whoever throws away this magazine in the trash can, or runs it through the paper shredder, commits blasphemy. Lord, deliver us from the freedom of religion! Maarten Boudry is a FWO (Research Foundation–Flanders) Research Fellow at Ghent University, Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences. This article is adapted from an opinion piece published in the Belgian newspaper De Tijd, as translated by Leon Korteweg.

Abolish the freedom of religion

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8550306/file/8550311

Abolish the freedom of religion

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography