AGAINST SILENCING AND MARGINALIZATION

Recently, a secular conversation group leader added the prohibition against any form of proselytizing in his groups, perhaps to silence Christians. Therefore, I asked him to explain what he meant by “proselytizing.” He responded:

·       The prohibition is mainly pertaining to religious and political beliefs/affiliation as they are more often than not the "hot" buttons that press people, even more so in the current political atmosphere. I've seen too often how people's animosity arises at events I've attended or even on the street, how people start to debate and get angry at each other, and have continuously observed the lesser result of objectives/main ideas for an event falling to the wayside. That among other things I've seen and felt personally. Therefore, religion/reasons for why people do or do not believe in a Creator and politics are off the table at my events.

I was troubled by his response, and so I responded:

Thanks for your response, even though I find that the line you draw against the expression of “religious and political beliefs” problematic. For one thing, religious/spiritual assumptions permeate everything – values, purposes, meaning, questions of origin, morality, choices, and even how we interpret our own lives and regard others.

The only reason that this might not be obvious is that, as a culture, we generally and unquestioningly accept certain ideas and values promoted by secularism. Even the halls of science have blindly accepted certain unfounded assumptions like “methodological naturalism,” which bans any discussion of ID and allows only naturalistic (non-ID) explanations without any supportive evidences whatsoever. There is not one shred of evidence that anything has ever occurred naturally (without intelligence). Instead, it seems that even the laws of science have been designed. They are elegant, immutable, and function universally, unlike any localized forces. Even the atom represents a marvel of design. Can we not point this out?

Some use the example of crystals or snowflakes as substances that self-assemble without design. However, such examples gloss over the fact that their chemistry, which evidences design, is responsible.

Consequently, it is inevitable that religious/spiritual assumptions will underlie our worldviews and find expression even in the more superficial discussions about the next president. As a result, your rules will be sidelining those who question such assumptions and give a free pass to those who share these assumptions and fail to see them as religious in nature.

Even the discussions at the Baha’i Religious Center devolve into discussions reflecting  their faith in self-help remedies based on the assumption that we have the power to change ourselves in meaningful ways. What is wrong about questioning this assumption by pointing to our severe human limitations and then offering an alternative Hope? It seems that this is allowing one hope in favor of another – an example of raw bias. It also defeats the purpose of these groups, which is to bring people having diverse ideas together.

You also expressed the legitimate concern that certain subjects might cause people to “get angry at each other.” However, it seems to me that this concern is best addressed by the rules that we already have regarding listening, understanding, and respecting one another, principles which we can all respect. Instead, trying to enforce your prohibition might become the source of unintended discord and unproductive conformity.