Religious Belief and Public Debate
by Doug Schrepel

Early in the recent deliberation over the Colorado Springs property tax initiative dubbed 2C, I penned an impassioned plea imploring us to look past our individual self-interest and reflect on the greater needs of our community. A few days later, before I had even poured my morning coffee, my ex-wife (with whom I have a good-natured relationship and share a surname) was calling me. The Colorado Springs Gazette had published my appeal and one of her clients had called her to share his annoyance.

This is how it should be in a pluralistic, democratic society. Moving my private beliefs into the public square necessarily exposed my ideas to criticism and debate. And so it should be with personal religious belief and the claims of religious institutions. Deeply held religious belief surely must carry political and policy implications for the wider community. If not, one wonders how deeply held such matters of conscience really are. Introducing religious claims into the public square, as arguments used to determine public policy, should subject these religious claims to unfettered examination by the public. After all, other deeply held moral convictions and claims of conscience are certainly not immune to criticism in the public square.

Regrettably, this is rarely the case. Instead, accepted etiquette requires us to defer to religious sensibilities. When pressed, the religious maintain that religion is a private matter, and admonish us when we demand good reasons for their claims. One’s individual faith is more important than evidence, rationality, consistency, morality, and legality. Those of us in the secular community have profoundly held beliefs of our own. It is presumptuous to think that secular political beliefs, notions of social justice, and moral convictions are held any less sincerely than the religious belief of even the most devout. Yet, secularists ask to be treated with civility, not with veneration.

Perhaps criticizing the religious beliefs of others is contrary to the spirit of tolerance that many in the secular community deem precious. This is mistaken. The liberal tradition of tolerance demands only that we grant others the right to hold and express diverse beliefs, freely and without fear of harm. It does not require us to hold such expressions to be free from criticism and debate. To allow religious belief a privileged status is demeaning to those holding such beliefs. Are the religious not as capable of offering persuasive arguments as the rest of us? Masquerading as tolerance, privileged status is in reality patronization.

While the U.S. Constitution protects our freedom of religious belief (or non-belief), it also protects our freedom of expression. To limit our freedom to criticize religious claims or religious matters of conscience is a dangerous precedent. It does nothing to strengthen our religious freedom, while seriously damaging our freedom of expression.
Criticism of religious convictions must adhere to the same standards of civility that we expect in other critical discourse. However, to fail to point out immoral, unjust, or simply nonsensical notions simply because the banner of religion flies over them can only result in harming the democracy and pluralistic society we all embrace.

First published November 12, 2009