On morality and reality

By Ken Burrows

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which regularly tracks the incidence of hate crimes and terroristic activity, recently reported how the manipulating of religion has become increasingly popular as a way to create “moral” foundations for criminal radicalism. The SPLC stated that violent extremists “are inspired by religious concepts and scriptural interpretations to lash out and kill in the name of religion.” It cited examples of white supremacists, militia extremists, anti-Semites, anti-abortionists and others who justify violent criminal actions by claiming to be “holy warriors” carrying out divine mandates of one form or another. (The SPLC specifically notes this radicalism is not to be confused with people who are simply extremely religious but do not follow their fervor to criminal ends.)

The report called this brand of domestic terrorism an “exploitation” of religion. As one example, it pointed to a militia that conspired to blow up funeral processions of fallen police officers as part of its professed “faith.” The SPLC said survivalist cults amass arms to oppose a one-world government seen as embodying “the Anti-Christ” depicted in the Bible. The report also cited Ku Klux Klansmen who associate their “Blood Drop Cross” symbol with the crucified Christ, and violent anti-abortionists, driven by religious zealotry, who claim that killing abortionists is “doing God’s work.”

Manipulating religious concepts to justify dark aims is, of course, not new. But what makes it so easy to do? One explanation is that religious concepts and their associated moral precepts are not grounded in reality but rather in varying, often inconsistent, versions of various faiths, which themselves may compete as claimants to “truth.” These moral precepts cannot be tested as being “right” or “wrong.” Their historic origins are subject to ongoing debate, so their very authenticity is unsettled. This makes religion-based morality ripe for manipulation as different people interpret—or deliberately misinterpret—it for moral guidance, or to claim it as cover for nefarious deeds.

Religionists often fault rationalistic life philosophies, such as humanism, for “lacking morality.” But in fact humanism embraces a strong set of ethics, with principles that defy manipulative exploitation because they are anchored in the real world rather than faith or myths. As former president of the American Humanist Association (AHA) Lloyd Morain explained, “We [humanists] ground our ethical decisions and ideals in human need and concern as opposed to the concerns of supposed deities.”

The AHA formally calls for affirming the dignity of every human being and upholding the “equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties.” It endorses work that serves the greater good of humanity and that contributes to the welfare of the community and strives for “a world … where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence.” Such reality-based ethics is uniformly positive, clear and consistent. In contrast to scripturally based dogmas, it offers no opening for holy warriors to warp it into God-directed mandates to attack others. (Humanism also opposes wielding religion as justification to discriminate against fellow citizens, a form of attack that’s spreading in the U.S.)

It’s true that religion-based morality leads many individuals to serve humankind benevolently. But its reliance on ancient scriptural messaging increases susceptibility to purposeful distortion by the deviously inclined. Humanistic ethics grounded in 21^st century reason and reality poses no such risk because it precludes using a claim of “doing God’s work” as a justification for malice.

Published in the May 2, 2018 edition of the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs Freethought Views advertorial column in the Colorado Springs Independent with the quotation below.

"Gods always come in handy; they justify almost anything.”

Margaret Atwood