Freethought Matters

I appreciate the weekly radio and t.v. (airing in NYC on Channel 11 and eventually posted online; the latest was an interesting John Irving interview) episodes provided by the co-presidents (a married couple; one was a previous minister, the wife involved in the formation of the group) of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I appreciate the name of the t.v. show -- Freethought Matters -- the best.

I did various "Rev. Joe" posts over the years, a reference to being ordained online in the Universal Life Church. I have argued it is not just some sort of joke or money making device. There is a something to doing right and practicing as your conscience sees fit as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. It is a basic matter of faith and conscience that expresses the position of many people not tied to an organized religion.

If someone wants to use "religious" imagery for this, that is okay too. The Unitarian-Universalist Church is a more widely respected form of this "universalism." Others rather not do this.  But, even many ethical societies in effect form organizations parallel to religious groups in various ways.  This is why, for example, New York includes them (or at least certain ones) among those able to marry people.  

The overall goal of the Freedom From Religion Foundation is to promote the separation of church and state. There is a wider sentiment that "religion" itself is a problem.  Again, I am not someone who goes that far as an absolute way.  The problem is how religion is used. Religion can be quite choice bound. Many faiths in fact put a lot of stock in that.

(Then, there is a concern that the beliefs are still coercive in various ways, but religion alone is not the only belief system with that problem.)

A major reason the organization began was to promote abortion rights and the author of The Cider House Rules (who apparently is somewhat open to ghosts existing, which probably was not a totally happy thing for the hosts) clearly has relevancy there.  Certain religious groups supported the push for abortion rights and still do.  The key there is being "free from" religion that takes that choice away.  It is not that all religion is necessarily bad.

I am fine with the program and organization generally since again their basic purposes is open to the idea that the Unitarians are okay. Plus, they have good guests and provide an interesting secular point of view about things.  I also am interested in liberal religious sentiments.  And, the freedom of choice and separation principles are very important.

Overall, I would say I am a freethinker.  I like the Unitarian position as whole, and the weekly meetings and such is something that is fine with me.  I am comfortable with the idea growing up Catholic though never really closely tied to the faith.  If you promote humanist principles (animal friendly), you can believe in God too, and many do.  

I have spoke here about my general belief that church and state should be separate. This does not mean religion will never somehow come into the public sphere.  I am somewhat less absolute in general these days about certain things. So, a key issue for me now regarding public displays would be equal time and giving localities some discretion (if they want to be strict, I generally think it should be allowed; the Supreme Court disagrees*).  I added a footnote to explain (again).

There also was recently a discussion of missionaries.  Missionaries to me come in various shapes and sizes.  There are liberal evangelicals (John Fea, a history professor and evangelical himself, wrote about how evangelicals sold their soul for Trump; he spoke of 18% or some such number dissenting) promoting social justice.  There are missionaries for communism and so on.  I do not think I'm abusing the term here.

One person challenged me to say that missionaries are inherently coercive. Missionaries with the backing of the state have done harm over the years.  But, missionaries overall need not be coercive.  They can promote their message and hope people accept it.  If they have no power, they cannot coerce. Some might be obtrusive, including ringing bells. 

I think I am something of an evangelist myself.  I have a desire to spread my beliefs and knowledge.  When people are wrong, it bothers me, and I want to correct them.  If I do not do so, it still bothers me. This is not true for a lot of people.  The "someone wrong on the Internet" cartoon is not a universal thing.  Anyway, I have a belief that it is important to spread knowledge. It is not just a means (it is) for me to vent or something.   

A basic concern of mine is that people should carefully think things through and have a chance to go their own way.  It bothers me when people say things online or challenge others in a way that comes off as shoddy thinking.  I also think empathy is very important and some who target religion themselves need to have some.  And, yes, free thought matters.

----

*  The matter is even more clear now, but ever since the 1981 Widmar v. Vincent opinion involving use of state university facilities for religious worship in a state with a strong separatist state constitution, free speech was used to stop it. In various cases, certain liberal leaning justices opposed state endorsed displays (including implied endorsement) or a religious club at an elementary school right after normal classes as crossing the line.  

I think (somewhat ironically given his opposition to various establishment claims) Justice White's solo dissent in that case is rather respectable. He notes the difference of religious worship in the First Amendment context and notes religious speech is treated differently in various ways.  He also would give the state there the option to have a stronger rule.  

The group's case in a university where lots of groups were given access -- and unlike a later case not involving student funds -- is weaker than others.  Still, I think it is a reasonable position, especially if you are going to have a weak establishment position.  

I think it also reasonable to argue that the Supreme Court went off on the wrong foot regarding requiring religious exemptions for unemployment compensation when a person is unable to work because of religious reasons. The case there is tricky, especially if the regulation already allows for certain exemptions tied to inability to work.  Free exercise reasonably is included there.  

And, the exemption system is individualized and except in a really vague way not burdensome to others. So, there is a way to avoid using it as some open-ended exemption rule that we are stuck with now where even vaccinations are tricky.  Still, as a nationwide constitutional rule set by the courts, it very well is debatable.