Imposition of beliefs

I may have talked about this before. If so…oh well. I recently got into a discussion online about discrimination and the imposition of beliefs. At one point someone made the statement, “It’s not right to impose your religious beliefs on others.” As this came up in a discussion about discrimination, I found this particularly interesting.

Let’s take that statement in two parts. First: “It’s not right to impose your beliefs on others”. Clearly this statement is wrong. I’ve yet to hear very many people espousing this belief simultaneously pressing for anarchy. (“a state of society without government or law.” – dictionary.com) And yet there cannot be a government or law without the imposition of will. Someone has to create that structure, and while it may be possible to give everyone input into that structure, sooner or later someone is going to disagree with part of that law. At that point they have the choice to leave, submit, or bear the consequences of disobedience. But the fact remains that someone else’s belief was imposed upon them.

The quality of a government system, arguably, comes from the breadth of input accepted. An absolute monarchy or a dictatorship may impose the will of one or a few people on the whole. If this one person’s belief system reflects that of those ruled, it’s not necessarily a bad system. But that doesn’t happen very often. As a general rule, at least in Western culture, the more the merrier. We like democracy, because it gives the most people the most say.

But even then, even if we were able to establish a government where everyone truly did have direct input into every governmental decision, at best we would still have the majority imposing their beliefs on the minority. Some will be gaining something, but others will be losing something. Even in America, which is founded upon the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just what those mean and how they should be supported diverges quickly. In the end it will always come down to the majority getting their way while the minority are forced to either go along or face the coercive power of government. The beliefs of some are imposed on others. Show me a government where this is not so.

It has to be that way, or there is anarchy. And chances are under anarchy there is still the imposition of beliefs on others. It’s just more often imposed more violently.

So that brings us to the second part: “It’s not right to impose your religious beliefs on others.” This can be taken a couple ways. The first is that it’s wrong to force someone into a specific religion. There are nations where this is not accepted–you will be a certain religion or you will die. Fortunately for us, the United States of America is not one of them. Our charter states specifically “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” For now only a minority challenges that. But much more vague, and at the heart of this discussion, is the growing idea that religion should not be allowed to drive or inform our politial views.

That’s a disturbing and silly perspective simultaneously. Our nation was built upon a foundation of religious ideals–many universally accepted as ethical, but nonetheless growing from religious influence. But at the very least it is difficult to claim that any of our current laws are based entirely on ethical considerations without religious “taint”. That’s almost like saying we should not paint pictures using any paint with pigment.  I suppose it could be possible to arrive at our current ethical standard (actually a contradiction in terms, really) entirely independent of religion, but a large percentage of it would overlap. To eliminate religion from public discourse would result in a comical farce in which people keep changing their hats in order to say the exact same thing.

What is disturbing about it is that one common area where complaints against imposing religious beliefs surface is when discrimination is perceived. The already-established notion that governments exist to discriminate aside, this argument seeks to claim “because your religious beliefs would cause us to discriminate, we believe we should be allowed to discriminate against such beliefs.” It’s the idea that some ideas invalid if reached by unapproved means, regardless of whether they are the same ideas approved of when reached by approved means. It seeks to discredit an entire viewpoint simply because it is currently in the way of your getting what you want.

I’m okay with government saying, “If you religious-minded people are in the minority on this issue that’s too bad. You had your vote and you lost. We are now doing X.” That’s the role of government. I am not okay with government (or anyone else) saying, “Your source of influence is invalid. If it at all figures in how you might vote your vote will be invalid also.” If we can discriminate thus against religious influence can other ideological influences be far behind? We could eliminate liberal or conservative views as inharmonious belief systems. We could decide that people who live in desert areas are invalid for votes on water rights. Anything that might influence someone’s vote in a way that might be viewed as discriminatory against someone else could be effectively discriminated against.

It’s one thing to change the course of a country by getting enough people on your side to win the majority vote and impose your beliefs on others. It’s another thing to tell someone they’re not even allowed at the table because their belief system is not approved of (not voted against legally, mind you, just deemed unacceptable by “right-thinking people”). How can you claim to be different, let alone better, from those you seek to keep from discriminating? Because your ethics say it’s okay, and won’t cause any problems? Can you prove it? You are asking us to take a great deal on faith. Does that not, then, make your ethical framework very much like a religion? Surely you wouldn’t want to force your religious beliefs on others. That would be wrong.

Actually, it wouldn’t. Not if you follow the rules we all agreed to on how to resolve conflict and define our government and laws. Like I said, I can accept you getting your way by majority rule; I don’t have to like it. But to tell me I shouldn’t shape my beliefs around something because it’s not something you accept is not how we do things in this country. If someone wants to get their ideas on society from banging two rocks together and listening to the noise, or by reading tea leaves, or by getting their palm read that’s none of your affair. If you want it to be otherwise there’s a process for that too. Just be careful. The law is a two-edged sword, and the lady swinging it is supposedly blindfolded.