SECULARISM as BIGOTRY in DISGUISE

[Guest guest]

'DON'T IMPOSE YOUR VALUES' ARGUMENT IS BIGOTRY IN DISGUISE

SECULARISM as BIGOTRY in DISGUISE

 

"No arguments are privileged because they come from secular people,

and none are somehow out of bounds because they come from people of

faith. Religious arguments have no special authority in the public

arena, but the attempt to label those arguments as illegitimate

because of their origin is simply a fashionable form of prejudice."

 

I am struggling to understand the "don't impose your values"

argument. According to this popular belief, it is wrong, and perhaps

dangerous, to vote your moral convictions unless everybody else

already shares them. Of course if everybody already shares them, no

imposition would be necessary.

Nobody ever explains exactly what constitutes an offense in voting

one's values, but the complaints appear to be aimed almost solely at

conservative Christians, who are viewed as divisive when they try

to "force their religious opinions on us." But as UCLA law professor

Eugene Volokh writes, "That's what most lawmaking is -- trying to

turn one's opinions on moral or pragmatic subjects into law."

 

Those who think Christians should keep their moral views to

themselves, it seems to me, are logically bound to deplore many

praiseworthy causes, including the abolition movement, which was

mostly the work of the evangelical churches courageously applying

Christian ideas of equality to the entrenched institution of

slavery. The slaveowners, by the way, frequently used "don't impose

your values" arguments, contending that whether they owned blacks or

not was a personal and private decision and therefore nobody else's

business. The civil rights movement, though an alliance of

Christians, Jews and nonbelievers, was primarily the work of the

black churches arguing from explicitly Christian principles.

 

The "don't impose" people make little effort to be consistent,

deploring, for example, Catholics who act on their church's beliefs

on abortion and stem cells, but not Catholics who follow the pope's

insistence that rich nations share their wealth with poor nations,

or his opposition to the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq.

 

If the "don't impose" people wish to mount a serious argument, they

will have to attack "imposers" on both sides of the issues they

discuss, not just their opponents. They will also have to explain

why arguments that come from religious beliefs are less worthy than

similar arguments that come from secular principles or simply from

hunches or personal feelings. Nat Hentoff, a passionate opponent of

abortion, isn't accused of imposing his opinions because he is an

atheist. The same arguments and activity by a Christian activist

would likely be seen as a violation of some sort.

 

Consistency would also require the "don't impose" supporters to

speak up about coercive schemes intended to force believers to

violate their own principles: anti-abortion doctors and nurses who

are required in some jurisdictions to study abortion techniques;

Catholic agencies forced to carry contraceptive coverage in health

plans; evangelical college groups who believe homosexuality is a sin

defunded or disbanded for not allowing gays to become officers in

their groups; the pressure from the ACLU and others to force the Boy

Scouts to admit gays, despite a Supreme Court ruling that the Scouts

are entitled to go their own way.

 

Then there is the current case of Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian

Christian Democrat who was named to be justice and home affairs

commissioner of the European Union, then rejected for having an

opinion that secular liberals find repugnant: He believes

homosexuality is a sin. The Times of London attacked the hounding of

Buttiglione "for holding personal beliefs that are at odds with the

prevailing social orthodoxy ... despite a categorical statement that

he would not let those beliefs intrude upon policy decisions." The

Times said this is a clear attempt by Buttiglione's opponents to

impose their views. No word of protest yet from "don't impose"

proponents.

 

Sometimes the "don't impose" argument pops up in an odd form, as

when John Kerry tried to define the stem-cell argument as science

vs. ideology. But the stem-cell debate in fact featured ideology vs.

ideology: the belief that the chance to eliminate many diseases

outweighs the killing of infinitesimal embryos vs. the belief that

killing embryos for research is a moral violation and a dangerous

precedent. Both arguments are serious moral ones.

 

Those who resent religiously based arguments often present

themselves as rational and scientific, whereas people of faith are

dogmatic and emotional. This won't do. As professor Volokh

argues, "All of our opinions are ultimately based on unproven and

unprovable moral premises." No arguments are privileged because they

come from secular people, and none are somehow out of bounds because

they come from people of faith. Religious arguments have no special

authority in the public arena, but the attempt to label those

arguments as illegitimate because of their origin is simply a

fashionable form of prejudice. Dropping the "don't impose" argument

would be a step toward improving the political climate.

 

COPYRIGHT 2004 JOHN LEO

http://www.uexpress.com/johnleo/