What's the best way to approach the "religion is infringing on my rights" argument that is often brought up?

[JChapel]

A lot of atheists I run into like to bring up the argument that religion is fine, so long as it’s kept in churches and people’s heads, basically. They seem to want religion to never touch politics or education, and want gays to be free to marry, abortions to be freely available, etc. While it is clear to me why this isn’t right, let alone fair, what is the best way to approach explaining it to someone who holds these views?

 

[musicality]

I’ll be interested in hearing others replies to your question.

The first thing that comes to mind is to question whether or not the issue being disputed actually involves someones “rights.”

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

A lot of atheists I run into like to bring up the argument that religion is fine, so long as it’s kept in churches and people’s heads, basically. They seem to want religion to never touch politics or education, and want gays to be free to marry, abortions to be freely available, etc. While it is clear to me why this isn’t right, let alone fair, what is the best way to approach explaining it to someone who holds these views?

I think that what some of these atheists are saying is that no one should have to live under laws that are solely informed by faith. I agree with that.

A good law should have explanations based on reality and reason, not pure faith.

 

[Nimzovik]

Indeed. The " Faith" of Atheism certainly denies the rights of Theists. Their faith demands that we not say Merry Christmas at schools or say in God We Trust on our money or place the Ten Commandents in court buildings. Their Faith demands we do not even mention Intelligent Design in Classrooms.

 

[grasscutter]

Indeed. The " Faith" of Atheism certainly denies the rights of Theists. Their faith demands that we not say Merry Christmas at schools or say in God We Trust on our money or place the Ten Commandents in court buildings. Their Faith demands we do not even mention Intelligent Design in Classrooms.

I agree. Atheists are allowed to insist that their world view (that is, religion) is the only one presented in the public arena. And the curious thing is that they don’t see the hypocrisy of their position.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

I read once that many modern atheists equate all of religion with Eastern religions (That is, ones such as Buddhism, Zen, Confucianism, etc.). That is to say, they believe that all religions should be handled the way that Eastern religions are.

Western religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, in particular) are, by their very nature, exoteric. This means that they are meant for external, public display. This doesn’t mean you go out into the middle of the street and proclaim your faith in Christ. This means that you worship as a group, with other people, and as part of a community. Western religion has also been accessible to large groups of people, meaning that it is made for large groups of people (the scripture is accessible in colloquial language, the spirituality is very visual and tangible, and the worship is public).

This is in contrast with Eastern religions (I don’t have complete knowledge of eastern religions, but I’ll try my best), which, by their very nature, are very exoteric. They are made, and meant to be, one of private, solemn, and internal reflection. Traditionally, this means private meditation in the privacy of one’s home. Yes, there are group gatherings, but they are not the center of the religion (in contrast to especially Christianity, where the Mass is our greatest prayer). In eastern religions, one meditates and reflects on the precepts of the religion in the privacy of one’s own home, dwelling, etc.

The failing comes when you try to equate one with the other, which may be a reason that many atheists say what you posted about. They identify more with eastern religions (lack of strict dogma, variety of different paths, the lack of deities), and so they come to believe that all religions should be like that. This is simply false. You cannot ask a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew to exchange their group prayer and worship into private reflection and meditation. By the same token, you can’t ask a Buddhist or a Confucian to do the opposite: turn their private reflection into communal praise and worship. To do so is to ask them to betray their religion.

In addition to the above, many atheists also believe that you shouldn’t have religion in politics, etc. When they do this, they equate a particular moral teaching or moral point with religion. This does not follow. A specific moral teaching does not have to be equated with a particular religion, especially if said moral point can be proved or made through reason without reference to religion (this can be done for many things: Abortion, birth control as harmful, no-fault divorce as being harmful, etc.). So, just because a candidate is pro-life, doesn’t mean that they are trying to force their religion on others. Morality does not wholly make up religion, so to say that a particular politician has a certain moral view does not mean that they are trying to force the religion (or irreligion) on another, just that they hold a certain moral view.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

A good law should have explanations based on** reality and reason**, not pure faith.

And that is exactly what the Catholic faith includes. We are not fundamentalist Christians you know

 

[surritter]

It’s fine to complain if a tenet of Christian theology, such as the Assumption of Mary, is forced upon someone. But what many atheists and others are lobbying for (abortion, so-called gay marriage, etc.) are not purely of the realm of religion. They can easily be discussed from the viewpoint of reason and natural law.

We must realize that those who want to engage in these actions use the cry against religion as justification for their unnatural and unreasonable behavior.

 

[ivecomeback]

I agree. Atheists are allowed to insist that their world view (that is, religion) is the only one presented in the public arena. And the curious thing is that they don’t see the hypocrisy of their position.

And yet the basic question here is how to address such a claim that religion is infringing on human “rights”. In my limited experience, this claim is not always espoused by the virulent atheist. I have found that engaging in dialog by asking “why” can help to understand objections. When most people are presented with an opportunity to talk, they do and then REAL conversation - and eventual conversions can happen. The trick is having the wisdom & humility to know when to walk away, when to challenge, when to keep asking etc.

St. Paul exhorted Timothy: "Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

 

[Mungling]

A lot of atheists I run into like to bring up the argument that religion is fine, so long as it’s kept in churches and people’s heads, basically. They seem to want religion to never touch politics or education, and want gays to be free to marry, abortions to be freely available, etc. While it is clear to me why this isn’t right, let alone fair, what is the best way to approach explaining it to someone who holds these views?

The funny thing about this line of reasoning is that it creates the very situation that they are accusing Christians of perpetuating. After all, when it boils down the core of their message, aren’t they saying that the only way we can participate in public life is if we are, or at the very least pretend to be, Atheists. This is not, I should add, secularism. While secularism seeks to create a government that holds no religious creed, it does NOT seek to stifle the voice of those who do, and it also does not presuppose that a certain creed (or lack thereof) is correct or incorrect. To suppose that religion is all wrong, and that any judgment based upon this must automatically be dismissed, is to violate these principles and create a sort of anti-theocracy.

Perhaps the issue is Atheists don’t really understand the religious. I think some may have the idea that religion is like a hat. But the truth is I have yet to meet a person who holds sincere religious conviction who is not utterly transformed by his faith. All law is a moral judgment, and a to say that a person cannot and should not participate in the democratic process because a person think’s he or she is wrong is just terribly flawed. I do not think that this is the society anyone envisions for the West.

I hope that kind-of, sort-of made sense.

 

[caliamo]

According to me, everyone is free to think what he wants. This is the mystery of human liberty. We can only expose our religious views. But we cannot realy convince atheists. We have only to testify from our faith. It reminds me Jesus and Pilate. Pilate asked to Jesus: “What is truth?”

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

There is no good way. An Atheist’s mind is already made up. We believe in Jesus. They believe in hating Jesus. You can’t speak to ignorance.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

There is no good way. An Atheist’s mind is already made up. We believe in Jesus. They believe in hating Jesus. You can’t speak to ignorance.

Atheists don’t hate Jesus anymore than good Catholics hate Shiva.
Contra Mundum:

And that is exactly what the Catholic faith includes. We are not fundamentalist Christians you know

Well, for example, the mystery of the trinity is pure faith. So for example, I would find a law prohibiting one from denying the trinity would be totally uncalled for.

Now many of these other issues are not strict matters of faith. Abortion, for example. One can make arguments against abortion that do not invoke the faith.

I never said otherwise, nor did I say that Catholic morality is based on faith alone.

 

[TowardTruth]

A lot of atheists I run into like to bring up the argument that religion is fine, so long as it’s kept in churches and people’s heads, basically. They seem to want religion to never touch politics or education, and want gays to be free to marry, abortions to be freely available, etc. While it is clear to me why this isn’t right, let alone fair, what is the best way to approach explaining it to someone who holds these views?

You might educate them in the religion of secularism or atheism. Tell them their religion should also be kept in their heads and not in your politics or education.

Their religion infringes on the rights of others too.

 

[ivecomeback]

There is no good way. An Atheist’s mind is already made up. We believe in Jesus. They believe in hating Jesus. You can’t speak to ignorance.

You can speak to ignorance. That is what Jesus did to the prostitutes, the tax collectors, and the “sinners”. You speak through your life, and your words. I did not believe in God at one point, thinking myself too smart for all that superstition. Faith seeped in by the quiet witness of those unafraid to question me and challenge me to defend my point of view.

 

[Rence]

A lot of atheists I run into like to bring up the argument that religion is fine, so long as it’s kept in churches and people’s heads, basically. They seem to want religion to never touch politics or education, and want gays to be free to marry, abortions to be freely available, etc. While it is clear to me why this isn’t right, let alone fair, what is the best way to approach explaining it to someone who holds these views?

I’d like to read good answers to your questions as well because atheists want to live the lifestyle they have chosen just as much as Catholics want to live the life they have chosen. No one wants to hear that they are wrong, and that they must do this, and not do that, because it conflicts with someone else’s religious beliefs.

I don’t appreciate claims from muslims that I have to cover my head. And I ignore claims by JWs that I shouldn’t be celebrating Christmas, or Easter, etc. I would fight/lobby any of their attempts to lobby to have their religious laws carved into our secular laws, so I can quite understand someone who does not share our faith feeling the same way. Let’s face it, some of the Catholic laws are only Catholic laws, and not taught by any other religion or culture to the extend that we are instructed. People of other religious don’t want to be confined by the rules of the Church anymore than we wish to be confined by the rules of someone else’s religion. Soo…how does one reply to an atheist who doesn’t share our views, because clearly we can’t cite only our religion to defend our views?

 

[surritter]

I’d like to read good answers to your questions as well because atheists want to live the lifestyle they have chosen just as much as Catholics want to live the life they have chosen. No one wants to hear that they are wrong, and that they must do this, and not do that, because it conflicts with someone else’s religious beliefs.

I don’t appreciate claims from muslims that I have to cover my head. And I ignore claims by JWs that I shouldn’t be celebrating Christmas, or Easter, etc. I would fight/lobby any of their attempts to lobby to have their religious laws carved into our secular laws, so I can quite understand someone who does not share our faith feeling the same way. Let’s face it, some of the Catholic laws are only Catholic laws, and not taught by any other religion or culture to the extend that we are instructed. People of other religious don’t want to be confined by the rules of the Church anymore than we wish to be confined by the rules of someone else’s religion. Soo…how does one reply to an atheist who doesn’t share our views, because clearly we can’t cite only our religion to defend our views?

We should reply that they don’t have to follow those rules. This is because you are referring to rules that are only Catholic rules, such as abstaining from meat on certain days. As a Catholic, if I were to say that an atheist must observe the same abstinence rules would be as unfair as it is for a Muslim to claim that a woman must cover her head.

However, I suspect that the OP was referring to more substantial things, such as abortion. If an atheist says that outlawing abortion is an imposition of religion, we should kindly point out that it has to do with biology and human rights, not religion. We should ask if they agree that the unborn baby is a human person. If they say no, then we turn to the medical references and work that angle. If they say yes it’s a person, but it has less rights than the mother, then we turn to the angle of law and discuss how it is that some persons have a lesser right to live than others (use the examples of slavery, euthanasia, etc., regarding personhood).

If the topic is so-called gay marriage, then religion is again not essential to the discussion. Ask them what the purpose of marriage is. If they say it’s the core relationship to start a family, then biology says that gay marriage is impossible because it is not ordered to the begetting of children. If they say that marriage is merely to certify love between two people, ask why the government is in the business of certifying love. Ask them if a marriage of three people would be logical, since they claim that the purpose is merely to certify love.

My point is that the contentious issues that atheists like to blame on religious beliefs have been things that any society from the beginning of time has handled, regardless of beliefs about God. The cry of “you’re imposing your religious views on me” could be a diversion tactic, or it could be an opening to a meaningful discussion that reduces innocent ignorance.

 

[musicality]

This has been mentioned at least once, but for the sake of making it visible, I don’t believe that this discussion is just about responding to atheists!

There are plenty of people who are offended by Catholic teachings who are Christians (even Catholics), Muslims, Jews, etc.

That being said, surritter brings up some good arguments - using science and reason to justify teachings, rather than solely relying on scripture or magisterial guidance. I think that it’s important to remember that our faith’s moral teachings are fundamentally grounded in natural moral law as much as they are in scripture and tradition. Unfortunately, the most commonly heard arguments for Christian/Catholic values do not necessarily refer to natural moral law.

 

[David]

Listening to Robert Spitzer talk on Healing the Culture, he discusses rights.
Intrinsic rights and extrinsic rights. As Americans we look the to Declaration of Independence where we see the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

These rights are believed to come from God and are self evident. Our extrinsic rights are seen in the Constitution, as they come from the government and not God.

Rights have an order, which is why life is listed before liberty, and so on. You can’t have liberty if don’t have life. One persons pursuit if happiness does not take precedence over another persons right to life. It would violate the ordering of rights.

Slavery was wrong because it put white peoples property rights before black peoples liberty rights. Human rights violations (see Dred Scott) lead to public outrage and civil wars.

Abortion is wrong because parental rights are put ahead of a child’s right to life.

Roe vs wade neglected the ordering of rights.

Hope this help someone.

Peace
David

 

[David]

How to turn the tables on a moral relativist.

Relativist: That’s the trouble with you religious. You always want to force you morality on everyone.

Me. What do mean my that?

Relativist: I think everyone should decide on what is moral.

Me: Does that mean I shouldn’t have an opinion

Relativist: You can have an opinion, but you shouldn’t force it on anyone.

Me: Is that your opinion?

Relativist: Well, yes.

Me: Then why are you forcing your opinion on me?

Relativist: Well I believe everyone should be able to decide what is right.

Me: That’s fine that you believe that, but what gives you the right to force your belief on me?

Relativist: Well, now you’re just confusing me.

Me: No, you were confused when you got here. I’m just helping you to see it.

Peace
David