I’m an atheist. I’m telling you this now so that you may judge my comments in context. I see being an atheist as giving me the freedom to make up my own mind about issues. I am free to listen to all sides of an argument, to draw my own conclusions and to form my own opinion – I don’t have to spend time debating with myself whether the opinion I’ve formed is in accordance with an archaic belief system.
Being an atheist doesn’t mean that I don’t have a value system. I know what’s right, and wrong. I don’t need someone else to tell me, I’m perfectly able to know that myself. Wars have been fought, lives lost and futures destroyed when people have followed their religious beliefs without pausing to think, “Is this right?”.
Religious belief system fall into two camps, the older “traditional” churches and – for want of a better description – what are seen as “sects/ cults”. Traditional churches have been, by and large, on the scene for the the past two millennia, have developed their belief systems to a point where followers are loath to change them, (despite the ever increasing challenges facing them), and give their leaders too much of a voice in what should be secular matters.
The newer sects on the other hand are treated as outsiders, crazies, and freaks. Search Google for Scientology and you’ll soon know what I mean. (I’m not condoning Scientology by the way, I personally believe that Scientology is not a religion, but a very dangerous power and money gathering organisation, who’ll use any means, legal and illegal to prevent their operation from being exposed.)
Whether you are a member of a traditional church or a smaller, newer sect, you’ve explicitly accepted the teachings of that belief system, or worse the interpretation by the leaders of that belief system. In other words, you’ve given up the freedom to think for yourself.
If you want to give up your freedom of thought, than that is your business, but when your beliefs start to impinge on the decisions of others, then I see that as a problem.
It’s because of these beliefs that some of the most controversial decisions that this country has been asked to decide on have been the ones involving clashes between the teachings of the Catholic Church and the needs/ desires of free-thinking people. It’s this clash that has resulted in abortion being unavailable in this country, what kept divorce from being available for so long and which caused such consternation when the right to travel abroad for an abortion came up for debate.
While not all these problems are behind us, and will certainly come to the fore again, the current topic raising hackles among the conservative church followers is that of co-habiting couples. The true believers argue that giving co-habiting couples the same rights as married couples undermines family values, leads to higher crime rates, higher unemployment and higher drug use. They see it as an attack on the family.
But whose definition of “family”? Considering that these same people campaigned against abortion and divorce, then I can only surmise that their definition of “family” includes, at one extreme, that of a couple trapped in a loveless marriage because they had an unplanned child. How is that scenario in the best interests of the child? Or the couple? Granted, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. Such an example could only exist in a situation where people have given up their freedom of thought and blindly follow the Church’s teachings on what is “right”.
This mentality is perfectly outlined by Cardinal Sean Brady when he said that the Irish Government is undermining the will of God if it introduces legislation to give co-habiting couples the same rights as married couples.
I don’t doubt that a stable family life is an important ingredient in a child’s upbringing, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the parents should be married. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the parents should even be of different sexes. If stability is so important, then why does it matter where it comes from?
In a rational world, these issues would be discussed on both sides in a fair and open-minded manner, but once one side base their arguments on their religious beliefs all sense of rationality goes out the door. The more well presented the arguments are, the more the true believers will become entrenched, and the more vitriolic their attacks become.
The unfortunate fact is that the Church in this country has too much power over how everybody on this island lives their lives – believer and non-believer alike. As an atheist, I have no intention of ever getting married in a church. If I decide that I want to raise a child as part of a co-habiting couple then why should religious conservatives be the ones to decide that I am not fit to raise a child in this manner? If they can argue their case in a rational manner, (which means no quoting from the Bible or ad hominem attacks), then I’ll be happy to consider that allowing co-habiting couples the same rights as married couples may be “wrong”.