Grayling on religious believers

AC Grayling over at The Guardian:

It is time to demand of believers that they take their personal choices and preferences in these non-rational and too often dangerous matters into the private sphere, like their sexual proclivities. Everyone is free to believe what they want, providing they do not bother (or coerce, or kill) others; but no-one is entitled to claim privileges merely on the grounds that they are votaries of one or another of the world's many religions.

And as this last point implies, it is time to demand and apply a right for the rest of us to non-interference by religious persons and organisations - a right to be free of proselytisation and the efforts of self-selected minority groups to impose their own choice of morality and practice on those who do not share their outlook.

Read more here.

More like this

Religion's been on my mind a lot lately. It's come up in a number of blog posts and articles I've read recently, and there have been some acrimonious debates on the topic at Panda's Thumb and elsewhere. All this thinking about religious issues has sparked a crisis of belief for me. That's nothing…
Bloody Pope. In a major speech reported all over the UK and probably around the world, the Pope whinged about religion being silenced [1]. Quite why he can't see the obvious problem in that is a mystery. Maybe self-awareness isn't his strong point. For extra fun, Ian Paisley denounces the Pope is…
At the AAI meeting in Copenhagen, the group formulated a Declaration on Religion in Public Life. It was a nice statement, a bit vague, the product of too little time and preparation, but still a useful expression of godless sentiment. To my amusement, Ken Ham read it and his head exploded. It's the…
I have been thinking a lot lately about the problem of expertise. By the problem of expertise, I mean how people who know better should relate to those who don't. Whether you are a physician or a physicist, this issue comes up a lot. People want the opinions of educated people -- pundits of…

You don't have a right to be free of proselytisation. Ridiculous.

You don't have a right to be free of proselytisation. Ridiculous.

It depends on the context. If I'm on private property owned by those who proselytize it is there right to do so and I will gladly leave when they start. But I don't think that religious groups of individuals have any inherent right to use public property as a vehical for proselytization, as would be the case with mandating ten commandments statues in courthouses, schools, etc.

You don't have a right to be free of proselytisation. Ridiculous.

True. Unless you're going to stomp on freedom of speech, the religious have every right to proselytize. That does not, of course, mean that anyone has to listen to them.

I certainly agree with Grayling on a lot of other of his points, though.

But I don't think that religious groups of individuals have any inherent right to use public property as a vehical for proselytization, as would be the case with mandating ten commandments statues in courthouses, schools, etc.

Not exactly. They should have no more or no less right to use public property than anyone else. As far as mandating religious views on courthouses, for example, that is a very different beast. That is the putting the imprimatur of the state on specific religious views.

That AC Grayling is a supernumary fellow, if I do say so myself.

By Friend Fruit (not verified) on 22 Oct 2006 #permalink

Hmm, supernumary is not even listed at dictionary.com.

By Friend Fruit (not verified) on 23 Oct 2006 #permalink