A Statement of Principles: The Conflict Hypothesis

Nope, not the Conflict Hypothesis you're probably thinking of.

Let it not be said that I am against religious freedom, as religious freedom protects my right not to be religious and to speak out against the harm that religion does, as well as it protects the rights of the religious to be religious and to speak out against people like me. Many of my early posts on this blog centered around Dominionism and associated ideologies like Christian Nationalism, Christian Reconstructionism, Christian Zionism, and Christian Triumphalism. I am not alone in identifying these ideologies as fascistic in nature. However, I have not called Dominionists "terrorists" for a good reason: they don't fit the definition. For as loud as they are, fascists can still be countered in the public sphere. They may not listen to reason, but if reason can have the last word, then fascism (including religious fascism) can be fought without recourse to illegal means. There's nothing illegal about advocating fascism in a pluralistic society. What is illegal is the destruction of said pluralism.

A US President once said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

I add a corollary: "Those who make freedom from religion impossible will make religious domination inevitable."

As evidenced by my previous posts, I feel differently about the Church of Scientology and its front groups. Rather than grouping them with the likes of Dominionist fascism, I have called the Church of Scientology a terrorist organization.

Religious freedom is a civil right and a human right, but it is not the only civil right. It is not the only human right. Sometimes, religion is in conflict with other rights. It is at these times that I draw a distinction between religious freedoms and other civil freedoms.

A civil society is a secular society. A secular society means that religious freedom is tolerated, as well as the freedom of the non-religious from religion. This is why I will often use the terms "civil" and "secular" in this context. Secularism does not mean outlawing religion, but a civil society requires that the non-religious be protected from the religious as much as the religious are protected from each other.

Atheism is not a religion. Humanism is a religion to some people. I respect these people, because they understand that though I am a Humanist, Humanism is not my religion. It is my worldview or life stance. I belong to no religion.

When a religious sect endangers the civil rights of its own members, and/or the civil and/or human rights of non-members, that sect has crossed the line, and must be called to answer for its crimes. Neither religious freedom or its corollary, freedom from religion, protects criminal activity.

Within my lifetime, I do believe a legal precedent must be set with regard to reasonable restrictions on religiously-inspired activities. All freedoms come with limits. Freedom does not negate responsibility. It does not negate culpability. And religious freedom isn't the only kind of freedom there is. It's not the only freedom that deserves protection. This is my philosophy of Church-State separation. I call it the Conflict Hypothesis.

This has been a statement of principles.