I do not consume opium – A defense of the freedom of religion and thought

I have always wondered why derogatory and supercilious statements are often fallacies or evince an inconsistency of principles. One of them is the so-called irrationality and apparent blindness of us believers in God. In this fashion, the supporters of Marxism, in whose theoretical basis the expression that religion serves to manipulate people was crafted, have resorted not only to cults of personality more proper of the Roman pantheon but have also built up a system of irrefutable dogmas that, however, do not derive from above but from the ideas of some. And yet, some that oppose Marxism adopt just this statement, which belies the possibility of their being fanatical in turn, at least in the negative fanaticism: uncompromising assent of the wrongness of the beliefs of others, not even admitting the slightest doubts.

I cannot denied that some of my fellow brothers and sisters in faith have made serious mistakes, and that some of them have even ignored the tenets we believe in led by many considerations, but generalizing is folly: every cliché and stereotyping is hateful, and I know more than one savvy and rational person that is also a believer. Likewise, we must respect those with whom we do not agree on metaphysical considerations, ever since every single human being has an inner worth and dignity that makes her/his life precious.

One of the problems of analyzing religion expression and freedom is that it is often forgotten that the freedom of religion is tied to other freedoms of conscience, belief and speech: just as anyone has a right to not believe or have non-theistic beliefs, others have the right to have the latter. In fact, this is often forgotten: for instance, those who feel outrage when seeing religious symbols worn by others hypocritically –in an unaware fashion at times, I concede- do not feel uncomfortable in the slightest way when seeing non-theistic ideological symbols of expressions, such as those of anarchism, communism, or else. This argument is found in a more developed fashion in the commentary of the European Journal of International Law on the Lautsi Case.

Additionally, as to those considerations that God has died, declared by Nietzche, besides the known expression “Nietzche has died, truly yours, God” that are expressed by many, I would rather emphasize that the presumed Theo-cide does not prevent the adherers of that thought to adhere to a philosophy or ideology: even those that dismiss theories as irrelevant unknowingly cling to a set of implied beliefs. In this fashion, for instance, some people can truly be called epicurean or hedonist because they unwkowingly act as such, because by focusing on enjoying sensory pleasures in the highest degree ignoring calls to the contrary, their life betrays the existence of a certain ideology of theirs. An analogous consideration was expressed in the outset of the book Philosophy: a very short introduction.

All in all, I would only like to say that we all have a philosophy and ideology, which is somehow connatural to human beings, even if it is one of uncertainty, and that despising others is a poor manifestation contrary to the esteem of the worth of others and appreciation of them. If they believe we are wrong, at least we deserve respect because, maybe, the one accused of smoking opium is indicted by someone who can also be accused of smoking opium or something else. Additionally, it ignores that many religions have contributed to the development of education and rationality in the world, as can be attested by the existence of universities, whose origins can be traced to the Catholic Church, as explained in the book How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization.

It is said that there is nothing new under the Sun, and maybe we are returning to Greco-Roman times, in which Christianity and Judaism live alongside Hellenic considerations and Roman gods. But please, let us not return to –ideological- persecutions. If it is said that religious persons have made persecutions, it is true, and vice versa, but precisely they must be stopped altogether. And in that regard, there is a general principle of law: that of personal responsibility, common to international and domestic legal systems: I am responsible for my own acts, so do not attribute me the mistakes made by others, because if you rely on our common belonging to one group, you and I belong to another common group: that of nationality (as long as countries exist), profession maybe, and in the end humankind for all of us. Additionally, the good deeds of believers -and unbelievers too- are often ignored by critics... Rather than mutual condemnations, let us value each other, and acknowledge that she/he is to be respected because who are you to consider that she/he is an ignorant, when she/he is in herself/himself an exceptional human being, unique, irreplaceable and priceless, that has faith in a manner that may be well-founded, and compatible with rationality and life itself, that often defies and goes beyond what mind grasps? In this sense, for instance, some rely on scientific arguments to deny the validity of religion by declaring, say, that religious experiences are always by-products of neurological operations. I doubt so, and scientific theories have been proved and disproved throughout the ages. In fact, even the big bang theory has been challenged recently. For the sake of discussion, however, even if it were so, it does not deny religion in itself, because it would be left to wonder whether the brain is designed so in order to make us act in accordance with a supra-physical or metaphysical reality.
In any case, naturally non-believers and agnostics may be better persons than some believers. In fact, Christians are forced to admit that, as did C.S. Lewis at the end of his book The Last Battle, or as shown in the Parables of those who claim to not know God or that declare to not follow but yet do His will in practice, and for this reason we are to respect everyone. I simply ask non-believers to do the same with us: grant us respect and, more than that, esteem.