Religion and Society - The Societal Harms of Religion

[Petros Agapetos]

Blasphemy laws limit freedom of speech regarding religious subjects, or apathy toward religious people, customs, and beliefs. Some religious consider some opinions to be blasphemy and therefore should never be expressed.

Similar laws can also forbid "religious defamation", hate speech, the vilification of religion, or "religious insult". In most countries, blasphemy is not a crime. Criminalizing blasphemy is a violation of the separation of church and state.

[Petros Agapetos]

The separation of church and state is the principle that religion and government have separate roles, and that neither should intrude upon the other: religious organizations may not set government policy, and the government may not privilege one religion over another, or religion in general over non-religion (and vice-versa). It is an important concept in secularism and a requirement of an "open society". The opposite policy is referred to as the "establishment of religion" as the official state sanctioned belief. When a religion gains significant influence in government, that government is referred to as a theocracy.

[Petros Agapetos]

Coercion in religion and propaganda

If a religion can establish itself as the state religion, it can coerce people into participation. This includes mandating religious worship in prisons or everyday life. Drug recovery programs with religious content can be mandated. Teacher led prayers or repeated references to God can be introduced in government controlled schools.
Holidays are state sanctioned and typically aligned to a particular religion's festivals.

Many countries supposedly have laws or constitutional measures to prevent people being coerced by the state into a particular religion but their governments attempt to establish an official religion regardless.

Religiously motivated laws

Religion can motivate laws, their drafting or the way they are implemented.
This sometimes occurs without the support of citizens or ignores the needs of minority groups.

Banning abortion
Sharia law
Religious censorship
Religious defamation
Death penalty


Religions dogma can motivate preferential treatment for a particular group, such as Arab Israelis being treated as second class citizens or preferential treatment of Muslims in Indonesia. In an Islamic state, non-Muslims (dhimmī) are required to pay a special Jizya tax. These laws often abridge political and personal rights, including:

Freedom of religion, conscience and speech
Equality before the law
Suppression of science and history
Education ignores important scientific (e.g. evolutionary) and historical subjects and may be replaced by religious dogma.
The government is more likely to pursue of ineffective policy based on dogma.
Climate change denial based on religion,
Abstinence-only sex education or no sex education at all,
Banning abortion, although this does not significantly reduce the number of abortions.
Religious tests for office

Some countries require religious tests to hold public office or to be a competent witness in a court of law. This even occurs in several US states but this is usually an ignored technicality since the US Supreme Court ruled that religious tests are unconstitutional. In an Islamic state, non-Muslims (dhimmī) are not allowed authority over Muslims.

[Petros Agapetos]

Religious government tends towards tyranny

"Is there any maxim in politics more certain and infallible, than that both the number and authority of priests should be confined within very narrow limits; and that the civil magistrate ought, for ever, to keep his fasces [bound wooden bundle symbolizing judicial authority] and axes from such dangerous hands? But if the spirit of popular religion were so salutary to society, a contrary maxim ought to prevail."
— David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

"Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor."
— C. S. Lewis

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."
— Thomas Jefferson

Religious duties are separate from politics

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
— Thomas Jefferson

In Mark 12:17, Jesus considers political and religious obligations to be separate:

"Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him."
Jesus also showed little interest in worldly affairs such as politics and is generally regarded as a role model for Christians.

[Petros Agapetos]

In the United States

The separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which begins:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution itself; it was first coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, to explain the intended effect of this part of the First Amendment.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court defined the Lemon test for determining whether a law violates the separation of church and state. A law is not constitutional unless:

1. It has a legitimate secular purpose, and
2. Its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
3. It does not cause an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

In the 19th century, American leaders supporting the separation of church and state were accused of heresy by the Catholic church. This is referred to as the Americanism heresy. However, formal recognition of church state separation still allows violations such as faith based initiatives, widespread display of the ten commandments on public land and resolutions that appeal to God. It also does not prevent religiously motivated laws such as limits on abortion.

[Petros Agapetos]

A religious test as a legal condition that a person holding certain positions of responsibility, typical public office, must hold (or disavow) a particular religion. They date back to persecution of Catholics in England during the seventeenth century. Religious tests are often used to support the dominant religion in a country and often used to discriminate against atheists.


Article VI of the US Constitution states:"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

This is taken to mean that there can be no law requiring an elected official to belong (or not belong) to a particular religion, or to profess belief in a god. Voters may, however, decide whether or not to vote for a candidate, based on that candidate's religious views.

Several states have clauses in their own constitutions requiring a religious test.

[Petros Agapetos]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The following summaries rely on Supreme Court decisions which have clarified and defined the meaning and scope of this amendment.

Religious protections

While the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the First Amendment, the concept (originally mentioned by Thomas Jefferson) is a logical extension of the establishment and free exercise clauses. True freedom of religion depends on government neutrality with regard to religion.

Establishment clause
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

This clause may appear to simply prevent the U.S. Congress from declaring a national religion. However, the Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections to all citizens, effectively prohibiting individual states from circumventing rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the Supreme Court has determined that the scope of this clause implies that "Government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion" (Justice David Souter, for the majority in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet).

Note that the word "respecting" in this clause means "regarding" and not "showing respect for".

Free exercise clause

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Essentially, the rights of each individual to exercise their religious beliefs cannot be infringed. The government can intervene and prohibit certain religious practices if they conflict with other laws and if such interference has a secular, religiously neutral purpose. Generally one individual's rights end where another's begin, ensuring that "free exercise" cannot be used as an excuse for violating the rights of others.

[Petros Agapetos]

Fundamentalism, in a religious context, is when a religious group believes that its scripture is the absolute truth, an exact representation of the world, its origins, and/or its eventual fate. The term was coined to refer to certain Christianity movements, but it is a sociological movement that is observed in religions as well.

"The prospects for the human race are bleak.[...] We cannot stop the destructive forces we have unleashed. We can hope only to lessen the disasters looming before us. This will require a sober, dispassionate response, one that accepts the severe limitations of humanity and gives up utopian fantasies. [...] the danger is not religion or science. The danger is fundamentalism itself."
— Chris Hedges

While they actually have modern origins, fundamentalists claim that they are advocating the original correct doctrines of Christianity. The idea of a "correct" interpretation is despite disagreements between Christians and even fundamentalists themselves. There is no evidence that a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible was originally held by the early church or any time until the 19th century.

"One of the greatest weaknesses of fundamentalism [...] is a lack of clear doctrine. This problem goes back to the very foundation of the movement. As previously noted, fundamentalism arose in the era of mass evangelism, and age when results trumped truth, and it never shed those beginnings. [4]"
While they all agree that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired, infallible Word of God, they disagree sharply on its true meaning. Broadly speaking, the movement's religious beliefs include:

Evangelicalism (the belief in the necessity of being "born again" to gain salvation) and that their interpretation is the exclusive way to heaven.

Biblical literalism, regular Bible study
Dominionism
Substitutionary atonement
Calvinism
Spreading their religion to outsiders
Return of Christ in the immediate future
Basic personal morality on their religious affiliation.
Belief that prayers are directly answered.
Faith healing
Direct revelation
Exorcism
Dispensationalism, the belief that God has had different arrangements with humanity throughout history.

Among US Christian evangelicals, the majority support social views such as:

Support for torture
Support for war
Political conservatism.
Preference for a smaller government, which conveniently allows for a greater role for religion.
Opposing welfare spending by government.
Opposing abortion in most or all cases.
Opposing homosexuality and same sex marriage.
Personal charity or tithing.
Authoritarianism
Traditionalism
Zionism

Biblical literalism

Literalism is the belief that a text, or at least large portions of it, should be read literally, not allegorically. This is commonly associated with fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.

Biblical literalism entails:
Young-Earth creationism and opposition to mainstream evolution. However, there is limited acceptance of divinely guided evolution.

Christian fundamentalists are more effective at driving sin underground than preventing it. This leads to hypocritical stances on many social issues.

"States that banned gay marriage had 11 percent more porn subscribers. The level of agreement in a state with the statement that "Even today miracles are performed by the power of God" predicted higher pornography consumption. States claiming to have old-fashioned values about family and marriage purchased substantially more adult-content subscriptions."
Why is this? The more sexual repression there is in a state or a community the more people are tempted or driven to find whatever outlet they can.

Jurisdictions that have been influenced by fundamentalist to repress or ban sex education and abortion very frequently end up with a higher abortion rate, which is the opposite of their stated goal!

[Petros Agapetos]

Islamic fundamentalism

Many Muslim fundamentalists adhere to a traditionalist Salafi/Wahhabist interpretation of Islam. Some terrorist organizations follow or promote an extreme version of Salafi Islam. Within the Salafi movement, emphasis is placed on teaching:

strict monotheism (tawhid)
avoidance of innovation in religious matters (bida’a) and
loyalty to Islam and disloyalty to anything un-Islamic (wala wal baraa)
personal interpretion ijtihad in interpreting Islamic law, outside of the traditional taqlid interpretation schools.

Quranic literalism:religious sharia law as core part of religion
"It is far easier to obey without thinking. [...] in the last 100 years, Islam has been sliding back to an era that never really existed. "

Ironically, the movement's origins only go back to the 18th century, based on the revivalist teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792)

[Petros Agapetos]

Fundamentalists are the true theists

Sam Harris defines a religious moderate in terms of their cherry picking of scripture:

"Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world. [...] From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of the texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist. [...] Religious moderation is the produce of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance-and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on a par with fundamentalism."

However, religious texts are generally contradictory, so even fundamentalists need to loosely interpret their texts in certain places. On the other hand, moderates arguably cherry pick to a greater extent. He also assumes, probably rightly, that all religious texts are incompatible with modern culture and values unless they are selectively used. He observes that theists often have a poor understanding of scripture, so the omissions are rarely noticed, such as the death penalty for heresy. Harris calls religious moderation a simple "neglect" of divine law and a result of modern culture and scientific knowledge making literalism untenable. Harris anticipates that advances in science will eventually replace our outdated understanding of spiritual and ethical understanding as well. He also notes that religious belief is not backed by reliable evidence. Moderate religion legitimizes fundamentalism because it prevents criticism of literalism. It also lacks any preventative measure to avoid believers becoming radicalized. He calls moderate religion just as bad as fundamentalism because:

"By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those that do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally."

Firstly, it is unreasonable to call a religious moderate just as irrational as a fundamentalist, since they accept many modern developments in knowledge. Secondly, what does it matter to a skeptic if religious moderates adhere to a particular scripture?

Harris writes dismissively of moderate religion, called it "failed", half-hearted and illegitimate, when compared to literalism. He is here adopting the interpretation of the fundamentalists as to what constitutes religion (argument from authority). However, we don't have any reason to agree with fundamentalists as to what constitutes religion. Moderate religion is a valid form of religion to billions of people (appeal to majority). He has not found suitable grounds to dismiss moderate religion as illegitimate or unworthy of examination in its own right.

By accepting the fundamentalist interpretation of scripture as the valid or true interpretation, Harris may be inadvertently adding authority to their claims, at least among those with a predisposition to religious belief. An alternative tactic is to argue that holy books can be interpreted in any way you choose to believe, which might enables peoples' consciences to influence their behavior for the better.