by Alan M. Dershowitz, Guest Author
Published in "Free Inquiry", Summer, 1999
The most insidious genre of censorial political correctness in America today involved belief in God. Few people in public life are prepared to disclose that they are atheists, agnostics, skeptics, or humanists. For a politician, such a declaration would be death as evidence by a recent controversy in Canada when a young rising star in Parliament introduced a resolution seeking to remove a phrase from Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms that declared "the supremacy of God." He was immediately punished by parliamentary leaders and forced to apologize. Although there are many closet disbelievers in politics today, few have the courage to acknowledge their skepticism in the face of religious hegemony.
Even academics, whose tenure guarantees them the right to speak freely without consequence, rarely publicize their disbelief for fear of alienating students, alumni, and the administration. Being an atheist or agnostic in America is relatively cost free, so long as you remain in the closet. Most public institutions have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to disbelief.
The situation is very different throughout Europe, where atheism and agnosticism are openly acknowledged. Numerous heads of government have made no secret of their disbelief. Despite - perhaps because of - the fact that most European nations have established churches, there is more actual freedom of disbelief in Europe than there is in the United States, whose Constitution guarantees freedom of and from religion. Established churches have a way of encouraging free thinking among those who don't want to be told what they may believe or disbelieve.
The time has come for atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and humanists to come out of the closet and to openly confront the religious hegemony in America that has created a political correctness so powerful that even the most courageous are afraid to violate it openly. Unless such a challenge is mounted, the situation will simply grow more dangerous. Already the Democratic Party, which traditionally was more secular than the Republican, has begun to run on God's coattails. It started with Jimmy Carter. It got worse with Bill Clinton. And it promises to get even worse with Al Gore, who is explicitly pandering to what he calls "faith-based organizations." More and more American politicians are publicly advertising their religious beliefs - that they have been saved, that they have been reborn, and that they have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior. This puts additional pressure on other politicians to match and exceed their rivals in public devotion to God. Some lobbying groups rank candidates by the fervor of their religious commitments.
One reason why so many disbelievers are unwilling to acknowledge their views with intellectual honesty is that the religious establishment has managed to persuade large segments of the American public that there is some correlation between belief in a supernatural God and human ethics and morals. Disbelievers are deemed immoral. Consider the response of Canadian Parliamentarian Randy White to the Parliamentarian who tried to remove God from the Charter: "What do we stand for in this country? What are the values? What are the morals? Every time you turn around, you see government slipping lower and lower into the gutters of this country." But history has shown that if there is any correlation between belief in God and personal morality - which I personally reject - it is as likely to be a negative as a positive one. Surely as much immorality has been committed in the name of religion as any other cause. The millions murdered by cynical, godless tyrants such as Hitler and Stalin are dwarfed by those killed in the names of Jesus, Muhammad, and Jehovah throughout history. In any event, Stalin and Hitler do not represent the morality of disbelievers any more than Torquemada represents the views of believers.
The most moral people in the world are those who act selflessly without promise of reward or threat of punishment in the hereafter. Pascal's's wager - that it is better to bet on the existence of God even if He doesn't exist, than to risk the punishment of disbelieving - is nothing more than a crude cost-benefit calculus having little to do with morality. I am aware of no empirical data showing that believers are less likely to commit crimes, cheat on their wives, or abuse their children than nonbelievers. Our prisons are full of people who profess religious beliefs, and the most beneficent human beings include many who are disbelievers.
I suspect that tens of millions of Americans are skeptics or nonbelievers but are afraid to speak out. We must make it safe for such people to express their views openly. Disbelief in God must become as legitimate as belief in God in every forum of American life. We must confront religious authoritarianism in the marketplace of ideas, with respect but with vigor.
Having called for more openness in the expression of views regarding the existence of god, let me follow my own example. I am a skeptic about everything, including God and theism. I am not certain about issues of cosmology. Sometimes I believe that our universe is the result of random forces. Other times I believe that there must be some order or purpose, thought I do not begin to understand what or who it could be. I do not expect that these cosmic doubts will ever be resolved in my mind. I am more certain that the miraculous stories that form the basis of most religious beliefs are myths. Yet I respect the Bible and enjoy reading and teaching it. Indeed, I find it even more fascinating as a human creation than as a divine revelation. I consider myself a committed Jew, but I do not believe that being a Jew requires belief in the supernatural. When I attend synagogue, as I often do, or conduct Sabbath, Passover, or Chanukah services at home, I recite prayers. I am comfortable with these apparent contradictions. I am part of a long tradition that links to my heritage through the words and melodies of prayer. Indeed, it si while praying that I experience my greatest doubts about God, and it is while looking at the stars that I make the leap of faith. But it is not faith in the empirical truths of religious stories or in the authority of hierarchical religious organizations. If there is a governing force, He (or She or It) is certainly not in touch with those who purport to be speaking on His behalf.
The important point is that everyone must have the right to question faith and to decide
these eternal issues by their own lights, without being condemned if they disagree with
today's religious consensus. Remember that religious views change over the millennium.
People were killed for believing in Jesus and then for not believing in Jesus, for accepting
Catholicism and for rejecting Catholicism, and for many other religious disagreements.
Today, thankfully, Americans are not killed for their religious believers or disbelievers. But
they are condemned as immoral and unfit for public office if they publicly declare their
skepticism. The world must be made safe and secure for disbelievers. America was
founded on religious dissent and skepticism. We must not accept religious hegemony or
preference for religion in public life. Atheists and agnostics are every bit as American,
every bit as moral and every bit as qualified to hold public office as people who believe in
an intervening God. Disbelievers should not accept second-class status in a nation whose
traditions and laws forbid tests of faith as a condition of citizenship or office holding.
Alan M. Dershowitz
Return to Alaco's Home Page
Return to Guest Authors