There exists a barrier in the area of civil discourse. A "wall," if you will, between that which can be discussed, and that which is off limits. Ask anyone about health care, the war in Iraq or immigration, and they'll probably give you a detailed description of their beliefs. But ask people about their religion, and the response is different.
Ask someone how they feel about the virgin birth of Jesus. No, really ask them. Go up to your friend and say, "Hey Timmy, do you really think that the first woman came from some guy's rib? Hey Ashraf, are you aware that the word 'Islam' means submission? Doesn't this bother you? Hey Joshua, do you really think it's such a great idea to resettle Israel so that everyone except your people can be eliminated from existence?"
Any reasonable person would be taken aghast at such open challenges to faith. But, why? Most would say that these are personal beliefs. It's just not right to question someone's religious beliefs. It's offensive.
Now ask yourself, who are you afraid of offending? What lines have been crossed? Are we not all so quick to attack each others' historical, political, scientific or social beliefs? If someone asserted that the sun revolved around the Earth, people would laugh in his face.
However when someone makes a proclamation of faith, everyone bites their tongues. People try so hard not to insult someone's religious beliefs, but once someone is a socialist, everyone grabs their pitchfork.
People need to open their minds and stop censoring themselves. It is a disgrace that certain American media refused to reproduce the Danish comics that caused such stir in the Islamic community.
It was taken for granted that no media source would want to incur the same wrath as the Danish. We are cowards to allow the Islamic community to get away with such intimidation.
A significant amount of people in our society still believes that intelligent design is an acceptable and scientific alternative to evolution. It's somehow understood that enough people support the idea of creationism that it perhaps should be taught in schools. It is the media's job to challenge this presumption.
People have argued that religion is a "personal zone" into which public discourse should not intrude. But the Sept. 11 hijackers practiced their twisted version of their religion in a personal environment when they boarded several planes and killed almost three thousand American citizens.
The Vatican is not keeping its sexual beliefs personal while its outspoken condemnation of contraception leads to thousands of AIDS related deaths each day in Africa. Radical Evangelical pro-lifers keep their beliefs personal when they bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors.
When such religious groups claim to be "guided by God" or to "save future babies by doing the right thing," the issue is not private. Surely $13 million of damage caused by bombings, arson and shootings are not a personal way to express the "right thing" to do.
Faith is considered necessary for society, and any challenge to it is deemed rude and offensive. This notion is misguided. People need to realize that morality exists without divine supervision. Good deeds can take place without divine permission. Secular society needs to take a verbal stand against the violence and nonsense that radical (and sometimes even moderate) religions are forcing upon our institutions.
According to a recent poll, 97 percent of Americans would gladly vote for a qualified woman or black person for president, but only 49 percent would consider an atheist. This is an utter disgrace.
We need to free ourselves from this idea that we should be afraid to insult religion. Everyone should be equally as proud to exercise their freedom of speech as vehemently as possible. No one should object to their duty as a citizen to fight against censorship, irrationalism, racism, sexism, child abuse, senseless discrimination and genocide.
Many elements of the world religions, fundamentalist and moderate alike, are undermining our core principles of freedom and equality. Their encroachment upon our scientific, educational and governmental institutions goes uncontested, and their effect will be drastic if they are not engaged with honest, objective and secular opposition.
