Is conservative religious faith the enemy of reason, free thought and civil society or have I missed something?

Few can have missed the recent and on-going furore over the government’s proposals to legalise same-sex marriage in England and Wales. Public expressions of both support and opposition to the proposals from ordinary members of the public have been in plentiful supply, and shyness hasn’t prevented lots of people, many of whom are not often found campaigning, appealing to friends and strangers alike, to join the melee and take action to influence proceedings one way or another. What has been lacking is real dialogue.

 

How many of these eager voices have engaged in rigorous debate? How many have taken the time to consider their position and to hear and reflect on that of their opponents? How many have done so in pursuit of a full understanding of the issue about which they are so exercised, and have been prepared to pursue that aim relentlessly and to its very end? Of those arguing against same-sex marriage, I have found but one such person, but I am not surprised. Why? Because the vast majority of the vociferous objectors to same-sex marriage object on religious grounds, and for the most part these people seem not to come to the conversation wanting to learn or understand, they come confident in the knowledge that they are right and, more importantly, that they already know everything they need to know.

 

I am frustrated by the disingenuous way that many Christians talk publicly as though they are there not there simply to whip up hysteria amongst those who share their faith, but to engage other segments of society in reasoned discussion. They may not realise it when first they raise their urgent voices, but they are not prepared for debate at all. Most have not begun to think about the issue on which they are campaigning, outside of the context of their own faith, not even the tiniest bit. Most disappointingly, many know nothing about the current marriage and civil partnership laws in Britain and could not give you even the sketchiest summary of the scope of the proposals about which they are so inflamed. This is made painfully evident by the weak, incoherent, unsubstantiated, inconsistent and, perhaps most tellingly of all, ever-changing arguments proffered by those who will actually allow you to engage them in conversation on the topic. To be so uninformed and yet so vocal, exposes a total lack of consideration for the people most affected by the issue on which they are campaigning, and their surprise when they discover facts so basic in the debate as to be essential, is nothing short of galling.

 

I note with deep and bitter disappointment that I have had the last word in all but one of my debates with Christians on this subject, and always before our conversations have fully penetrated the issue. I do not want the last word. I want a proper debate. I want to listen carefully to my opponents, to assimilate the exposition of their arguments that I could not expect to gain without hearing my opponents speak them, to reflect on my position in light of what I have learnt, and to formulate a response that deals directly with what they have shared with me and appeals intelligently to their reasoning in the context of my developed understanding of their beliefs, assumptions, fears, experiences and values. That is what I want from them too.

 

My hope is a hopeless one.  It seems that most vocal Christians want only to dictate what will happen. Expending time or energy on understanding or listening to those who would argue against them is time and energy wasted since they have a divine mandate for their stubbornness and deep down they know their minds are no more susceptible to the influence of reason than are the words printed in their precious bibles.

 

Many Christians have been willing casually to chuck comments into the fray, but when challenged to think about what they've said, all will eventually fall silent or say something along the lines of, "Interesting debate, thanks for your comments but I think I'll leave the discussion here." This is an ostensibly polite and respectful comment, but the curtailment of the dialogue itself is as contemptibly cowardly as it is discourteous. They may well be praying for me silently instead, but I cannot respect the casual opportunism of these throw-away interjections when they come at such a great cost, not if those who have made them are unwilling or unable to remain in conversation with those they have just hurt and insulted. It appals and pains me that many of the people exhibiting this intellectually stultified and emotionally stifled behaviour are amongst those I have long considered the most intelligent, compassionate and open-minded people I know.

 

It appears that these people know what to believe, what to think and how to live because of a book they consider holy, which is all their faith requires. That is fine. If, however, because of this book, this self-contradictory book, which, whatever truth it may contain, was written by fallible men and demonstrably is as much a product of their imperfections as of their holiness, they then wish to impose an unexplained and highly selective set of its instructions on the rest of an incredulous society that considers these instructions inadequate and obsolescent, they should not be surprised if they find they have a fight on their hands.

 

If a disagreement is implacable and one or more parties is unable to listen or think, why pretend there is any point in talking? There will always be disagreements between different groups in society. If they cannot engage in civilised dialogue and find ways to accommodate one another’s differences, what hope is there? For people of faith not to be content with having their own laws for their holy institutions, but for them to demand that their laws be imposed on secular society without offering any reason that goes beyond “we’re right, you’re wrong but don’t worry, we know what’s best for you,” is not only insulting, it is staggeringly infantile and utterly stupid.

 

I have stated my complaint as clearly as I can and I have offered my reasoning in support, but am I right? If you see flaws in my observations or what I have inferred from them, I should like to know.

I am not trolling and I am not here to incite a flame war. I have serious grievances with the faith I once called my own. If you can illuminate for me this dark and sordid matter, please do. I welcome any comments or observations that are sincere and thoughtful, however much they may agree or disagree with my note. Any cheap, small-minded or thoughtless comments will not be entertained, whomsoever they may support or criticise.