Response to Religion

There are several different stances on religion that atheists can take.  While it is true that some believe that religion should be made illegal, I suspect that this is a small minority of atheists.  There are even atheists who believe that religion does more good than harm.  Then there are those who believe that the world would be better off without it.

This last stance is something different from the first.  It is possible to believe that something is harmful, and yet also believe that it should be tolerated at the same time.

Often I have heard or read atheists saying something to the effect that they didn't have a problem with people practicing their own personal religion, but that they didn't want religion to be given an official recognition by the government.  On the other hand there are those who say that religion has no place in the public square.  These two positions are not ones that I can express agreement with, although my actual views may not be all that different from the people who express their views in this way.

If by saying that you don't have a problem with the personal expression of religion, you mean that religion should be tolerated, I would agree.  However, we must keep in mind that tolerance and approval are two different things.

Precisely what people mean when they say that religion has no place in the public square escapes me.  I would say that religion deserves the same place in the public square as atheism.  People can support legislation with religious arguments so long as they are prepared to have those arguments opposed in the public square.  Everything that is brought into the public square is a proper subject for debate.  If someone gives religious reasons for a political stance, then people who disagree with that stance have should feel free to oppose that stance on the basis that the religion in question is false.  It is no more offensive to state that a religious idea is false than to say that it is true.

As an example of this, let's take gay rights.  Some religious people have opposed these on the basis that "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."  The most straightforward way of dealing with this is to say that it wasn't Adam and Eve.  There was no time when there were only two humans.  The biblical story is completely at odds with all available evidence.  There is no evidence that humans ever went through such a tight bottleneck, much less that they did so six to ten thousand years ago.  All available evidence indicates that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor who lived between five and seven million years ago.  One population diverged from the other.

I don't have to go into any complicated theological argument about why homosexuality is compatible with Christianity after all.  Neither do I have to make an argument that even if the story about Adam and Eve were factual that it would have no place in the public square.  Some people might find this extreme.  Shouldn't we allow more liberal Christians to have their say?  Of course we should.  Don't let me stop you.  If you want to make these arguments against religious conservatives be my guest.  My point is that they aren't my arguments.