Regulating Religion

One of my favourite questions is whether religion has been a net benefit to humanity.

The argument against is very strong. Most wars have started through religion. Most religion has at times degenerated into exploitation. Religion has often held back social progress, and can also work against action on things like climate change.

Perhaps the greatest and most pervasive example of human exploitation has been the claim of the powerful that people would be rewarded in heaven were they only to accept their lot on earth. What a convenient argument that has been for powerful people for generation after generation!

I read the biography of Jerusalem by Simon Sebag Montefiore a couple of years ago and can still recall the unending tale of horror. Those tempted to think the current evil in the name of that city is a blot on humanity should read that history – that blot has extended since the founding of the city and has often been deeper.

We weep when we read of what is carried out in the name of religion. Islamic State purports to be religiously inspired. Just this week the sectarian killing of over a hundred Christians in Kenya sunk that part of the world to a new low. And of course no religion has a monopoly on hatred. The holocaust was a pogrom in the name of religion as well. So called Buddhists carry out atrocities in Burma and Sri Lanka, while Hindu nationalism is used to justify inhumanity in India.

But the case in favour of religion may be just as strong. The Catholic Church is the most effective NGO in the world, reliving suffering in many lands. Food banks and other necessary charity are often religiously motivated. Great religious leaders can inspire and can heal, and can speak truth to secular power when required.

Religion has also offered great hope and comfort to individuals, and the warmth of a loving community for the lonely. Further, much modern psychological science has its roots in religion, from meditation, counting blessings, reconciliation, twelve steps and much more. The mantra of loving God and loving ones neighbour is as effective life philosophy as exists, at least while God is a reminder of powerlessness and a cause for humility.

Religion has helped me in the last few years, something I would not have thought likely even ten years ago. While I am far from a classical believer, I am happy to accept the rituals as they are (who am I to claim I know better?) and to accept the blessings. Most of the time, these are just nice to have, but there are moments in all our lives when they could be critical.

Religion has longer traditions than most laws, so there are some ways that lawmakers need to allow religious exemptions, and even some anachronistic settlements, such as the role of the Queen as head of state and Church leader in the UK. The furore this month in Indiana and Arkansas about gay discrimination started as an intended religious exception. The Hobby Lobby case is another example of religion being used to effect laws.

So let us pose another question. Let us assume religion was only invented recently. How then would the world choose to regulate it? My conclusion is that it would be rather heavily.

Most of the rituals, and a lot of the literature, would survive. People should be able top belief what they like and partake in different types of service or ritual as they saw fit, so long as this posed no threat to others. Indeed, some existing attempts to stifle religious practices, such as banning burkas or forcing Sikhs to wear helmets, could be argued as overly restricting individual liberty. The burden should be on the state to demonstrate a wider good for such measures.

However, several key aspects of religion would be heavily challenged. First would come any reference to “chosen people” or other innate superiority in any literature or public claims. This would fall foul of discrimination laws or hate speech laws, and quite right too. This belief in superiority has been at the heart of most war and injustice in the world. This stipulation would change more or less every religion in the world, and in my opinion for the better.

This ought to make religions compete more openly with each other. Competition authorities would look at any company with a near monopoly in a market, and in the same way religions would come under similar scrutiny. It is notable how Catholicism has a near monopoly in the Philippines but virtually no presence in neighbouring lands. All other religions have their mini-monopolies, and none of these are healthy.

Regulators would address this in the same way as they address dominant companies. Switching costs would be reduced, and eligibility barriers eliminated (watch out, Jews). Locking minors into one religion for life would be outlawed (I have always though first communion at seven was a blot on Catholicism). States would have to ensure equal provision for at least three religions, with equal support and information available. No doubt it would take several generations for family loyalty and tradition to erode, but the result would be individuals making their own conscious choices using their own brains. This can only be a good thing. In the same way, eligibility and recruitment processes for officers would be examined and changed radically.

The third main challenge would be in the area of exploitation. Financial services firms (belatedly and minimally) have to avoid misleading customers with false claims. Casino operators are heavily regulated to stop them (partially) taking advantage of people who may become addicts. The same scrutiny would be applied to religions.

A result would be greater transparency of finances, and a challenge to unquantifiable promises. We can choose to give 10% of our income to a Church, and we can even choose to believe that our reward will be in heaven. But we would have greater visibility over where (on earth) our 10% ended up. And Church leaders would no longer be able to pressure us into giving based on promises outside our lifespan.

There may be other challenges, but I believe these three would be the most impactful. No behaviour tolerated based on perceived superiority over others. Enforced genuine religious competition in all markets with true freedom of choice. And regulation protecting against exploitation of the vulnerable.

Many, even most believers would say these restrictions would cut against the heart of their faith, and damage their religions unreasonably. I beg to differ. Individual faith would not being attacked by this type of restriction. Beyond some censoring of historical literature of dubious provenance about racial or religious superiority, very little would actually change at the individual level. Instead, our choices would be more conscious and more thought through, and religious leaders would need to work harder to build their attraction to us.

I have a sort of answer to my own question about whether religion has been a good thing for mankind. I suspect the question is bigger than religion, in that religion has been a way we have defined our humanity. If religion had not been there, we’d have found other reasons to go to war with each other or exploit each other. We’d still have been obsessed by where we came from and where we might go after death. And, on the other side, we’d probably have discovered reconciliation and charity without the help of religion.

So I think the question resolves into a tautology. Has humanity been good for humanity? Well, I suppose we are still here, despite our many flaws. So it is probably a yes. Thank God for that.