Freedom from Religion?

Perhaps you've heard of them. They are an organization called Freedom From Religion, and their goal is to eliminate religion from the public arena. Similar to the NAACP LDF, which exists to provide legal assistance to poor African Americans and civil rights and voting rights activists, and brings lawsuits against violators of civil rights or the ACLU which (ostensibly) exists to advocate individual rights, by litigating, legislating, and educating the public on a broad array of issues affecting individual, the FFF group aims to "educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state." Now, perhaps I'm overstating when I say that they want to eliminate religion from the public arena. In the case of the New Atheists, however, it would not be an exaggeration. At the top of their website they declare their own aims: "Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. Indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview."

Right or wrong, what would it be like if the New Atheists had their way? They would like the whole "religion" thing to go away. It's a myth, fairy tales told by ignorant people to ignorant children. It serves no purpose. Replace it with "the truth". So ... what if we did as they demanded? How would that alter life as we know it?

I'll leave off obvious things like "no more churches everywhere you go". Sure, we'd eliminate the dominant beliefs of 95% of Americans, but that's their problem, right? No, I'm thinking of broader matters. I mean, if you disagree with a religion, just ignore their church on the corner. Big deal. If you believe that the dominant beliefs of 95% of Americans are wrong, you're doing them a favor, right? But what about other matters? What about, say, holidays? If we were to be consistent with "no religion", it would mandate the end of everything from St. Valentine's Day and Halloween to Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. (Don't forget Hanukkah and the like.) (I don't actually understand how a conscientious atheist can take off holidays that are religious in nature. Indeed, the word "holiday" is religious in nature. Taking a day off work that is offered for the celebration of things they deny exist would seem blatantly deceitful. But maybe that's just me.) The impact of removing these would be much larger than simply adding days of work (and school) to the calendar. Take, for instance, the obvious affect these types of events have on human interaction. Grouse all you want, but there is an undeniable sense at Christmas time, for instance, of "good cheer", of optimism and better relations between people. Thanksgiving gives a definite moment to recall "blessings" which would otherwise be ignored. We whine about how these things are no longer related to their origins, but there is still enough of a carryover to have a positive effect. Throw that effect out. The positive sense that religion gives at holidays would be gone. In a much more measurable sense, businesses count on these holidays for a large part of their income. According to the National Retail Federation, "the holiday season can represent anywhere between 25-40% of annual sales." So expect retail businesses to lose up to 40% of their annual revenue. I'll let the New Atheists make that offer to retail businesses everywhere.

How about the effects on health care? "Health care?" you ask. Yes. About 12% of community hospitals in the United States are Catholic hospitals. Something like 18% of hospital beds in America are provided by religious-based hospitals. If we eliminated religion, we would impact health care from the perspective of hospital beds at least. Beyond that, however, the medical profession has done studies as well on the effects of prayer and faith on health. For whatever reason you care to assign it, it turns out that prayer and faith have a measurable effect on health. Dr. Brick Johnstone declared, "Prayer isn't related to health per se, but if you have real strong beliefs in a loving, caring God, and if you have real strong support from your congregation, those things lead to better health." Or consider Alcoholics Anonymous as an example. They (and their relatives) base their approach on a "higher power" -- a religious belief. Remove that higher support and you remove their success. In many ways, removing religion from society would impact health care.

How about charity? From the American Jewish Committee to the YWCA, there are long lists of faith-based charitable organizations. In fact, in one article back in 2003, "Five of the nation's largest faith-based charities were ranked as part of Worth magazine's 100 most efficient charitable groups." According to government figures, more than one third of all volunteers donate their time to religious-based organizations. "Volunteers across all racial and ethnic groups are more likely to donate their time through religious organizations than through any other type of organization." Some 43% of youth mentors work through faith-based organizations. These organizations, from church congregations through major charitable organizations, work in areas like housing development, economic development, and community development. It is not possible to conclude that ripping away faith-based charities would have minimal impact on the charitable contributions (time, money, etc.) to society.

From there, the questions get more personal. For instance, The Heritage Foundation has reported on various aspects of the effects of religion on life. Studies have found things like this:

* The strength of the family unit is intertwined with the practice of religion. Churchgoers are more likely to be married, less likely to be divorced or single, and more likely to manifest high levels of satisfaction in marriage.
* Church attendance is the most important predictor of marital stability and happiness.
* The regular practice of religion helps poor persons move out of poverty. Regular church attendance, for example, is particularly instrumental in helping young people to escape the poverty of inner-city life.
* Religious belief and practice contribute substantially to the formation of personal moral criteria and sound moral judgment.
* Regular religious practice generally inoculates individuals against a host of social problems, including suicide, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, crime, and divorce.
* The regular practice of religion also encourages such beneficial effects on mental health as less depression (a modern epidemic), more self-esteem, and greater family and marital happiness.
* In repairing damage caused by alcoholism, drug addiction, and marital breakdown, religious belief and practice are a major source of strength and recovery.
* Regular practice of religion is good for personal physical health: It increases longevity, improves one's chances of recovery from illness, and lessens the incidence of many killer diseases.

Remove religion, and you impact several aspects of individual lives. For instance, without religion there is no rational basis for a moral system. This isn't a merely religious argument. The rational atheist admits it. Bertrand Russell wrote, "Outside human desires there is no moral standard." This is not to suggest that atheists are immoral or have no basis for their morality. It simply says that without a Lawgiver there is no source of moral values that must be applied to all people. Morality shifts to pragmatism. As Bertrand Russell said, morality is simply based on human desire. One person may argue that it's wrong to kill people and another may argue that it's perfectly acceptable and there is no basis on which to call one right and the other wrong. All morality is based on "What's right for me." Remove religion and you remove several fundamental human beliefs. The basis of the American Revolution was the premise that a Creator had endowed humans with rights. If, on the other hand, the Creator is disallowed, humans have no more rights than any other creature. Judaism and Christianity have always held that Man has the highest value among living beings because we were made in the image of God. Remove God and you have, as Peter Singer has worked so hard to argue, mere speciesism, the pernicious belief in the superior value of the human being that needs to be removed with God. All calls to a "higher power" need to be eliminated, along with their effects. Some are provided a sense of purpose in life from that call. Some are provided comfort in sorrow and death from that call. Some experience extra strength to go through difficult situations from that call. Away with all that.

None of this is an apologetic for theism. I hope you understand that. Nor is any of it some sort of argument against atheism. None of this argues for either as a truth claim. I'm simply offering a view of the alternative to the present. Would we be better off by eliminating God? Would we be better off economically, socially, physically, mentally? Would our lives be better? Our marriages? Our families? Our care for others? Our morality? Our personal outlooks? If it is true that there is no God, it would paint a much different, much bleaker picture of our existence. I haven't argued that there is a God, but I'm pretty sure that the argument against God isn't offering us something better than what we have.