Humanism, atheism and other freedoms

We are wearily familiar with the way certain religionists attempt to impose their ideas on others. You don’t have to travel back to the days of the Inquisition to see this happening. You can find examples in most societies today – sometimes in overt forms, sometimes in more subtle ways.

It doesn’t come more overt than the terrorism of Islamic extremists. That’s the dangerous end of the spectrum – dangerous, that is, to life and limb. The same goes for loony evangelicals willing to murder doctors because they believe everyone must agree with an attitude to abortion guided by antique superstition.

But what of those subtle forms? Well, how about a pharmacist who makes it difficult for you to get the medicines you need?

The UK’s General Pharmaceutical Council (GPC) is currently drawing up new regulatory standards for the profession, covering areas such as confidentiality, education and ethics. You wouldn’t think that issues of faith would be a factor here. Alas, myths and prejudices formed thousands of years ago continue to affect our daily lives, however much we like to believe we live in a rational age.

It seems that some pharmacists like to bring their prejudices to work with them. There have been cases, for example, of pharmacists refusing to supply patients with the morning-after pill, in spite of doctors having prescribed it legally and in the best interests of the patients.

I’m not suggesting that only rationalists and humanists may become pharmacists. I’m simply saying that, when you’re a pharmacist, your duty and obligation to society must override any faith you hold, not the other way around.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) is participating in the GBC’s consultation process. The BHA’s stand is, as always, very reasonable:

If pharmacists are allowed to refuse certain services to patients because they believe it conflicts with their beliefs to supply such services, it should never be the case that those accessing services should suffer. At a minimum, it should be expected that the patient or the public be referred to someone who can meet their needs – but only if this would not cause them any distress or particular inconvenience.

It’s not just pharmacists who sometimes encounter a conflict between their social responsibilities and their mystical beliefs. In the past, we’ve seen examples of registrars employed by local councils refusing to conduct civil union (ie, marriage) ceremonies for same-sex couples. In fact, one can easily draw up a list that might also include doctors and other medical professionals, government functionaries and other posts where people perform important tasks for members of the public. These are posts where the performance of the job may have profound effects on people’s lives. And they are jobs in which religion plays no part, per se.

So, should religionists be able to decide whether to carry out their job functions based on their faith?

Of course not. That’s a clear dereliction of duty, both in the strict context of the person’s employment and in the wider context of their duty to society. It is an imposition of their own, narrow beliefs on the people they should be serving.

So, what is a religionist with deep convictions to do? If, for example, a pharmacist genuinely believes that supplying a morning-after pill to a women is tantamount to the murder of a would-be baby, what is the right course of action?

It’s simple. Get another job.

Even better, don’t become a pharmacist in the first place. If you have deep-seated beliefs that make it difficult or impossible for you to carry out certain actions, don’t take a job that involves those actions. Dispensing contraceptives is a regular part of a pharmacist’s job. If your beliefs prevent you from doing that, then you are not fit to be a pharmacist. Civil unions are legal in the UK. If your faith stops you from conducting such ceremonies, you are not competent to be a registrar.

You can be religious and still be a pharmacist or registrar or hold some other post that impinges on people’s lives. Just recognise that your spiritual beliefs are a personal choice that have nothing to do with the job. So leave your faith out of it.

The bizarre pseudo-religion Scientology faces being banned in France if its leaders – currently on trial – are found guilty of seizing victims’ fortunes by “exerting a psychological hold”.

Given that this is a perfect description of what Scientology is all about, it doesn’t look good for the wacky cult.

The ‘church’ itself is on trial alongside the six leaders (there was a seventh who died).

There are two cases going through the courts. In one, the plaintiff alleges that the cult preyed on her when she was in a fragile psychological condition, relieving her of a large sum of money for worthless products.

In the other case, a woman claims her boss fired her after she refused to participate in Church of Scientology courses.

Both cases demonstrate how the cult operates through a process of indoctrination and brainwashing. Two other complainants dropped out: no reasons were given, but the Church of Scientology is notorious for its harassment and intimidation of those who stand against it.

This isn’t the first time the wealthy and powerful organisation has been in trouble in France. But this time it might face a complete ban – another good reason to live in France.

It’s always amazed me that certain religions, which claim to have a route to illuminating and transcendental truths, so often resort to underhand, aggressive and even immoral methods to get people to see things their way. People, it seems, cannot be trusted to come to the light purely through the self-evident beauty and purity of the truth itself: they must be forced.

Among the cults most notorious for this kind of behaviour, the Church of Scientology (CoS) stands the most frequently accused of malicious and unethical tactics.

Most of us have experienced the cult’s mendacious ways. When I lived in London, I lost count of the number of times I was offered a ‘personality test’ by glassy eyed Scientology footsoldiers in Tottenham Court Road. As we all know, the so-called test is just the false cover for a psychological trap designed to suck in the dishearted, disenfranchised or vulnerable.

That’s bad enough. But at least in the street you can hurry by with little more than a faint creeping of the scalp. Two men in the US weren’t so lucky, they say. They have brought legal action against their ex-employer – software company Diskeeper – for unfair dismissal. The men refused to go on training courses laid on by the firm. The reason they give is that these were Scientology-based courses.

Diskeeper’s boss, Craig Jensen, is a Scientology evangelist. His name previously hit the headlines because the company’s product was included in Windows 2000. Rumours abounded about the possibility of the software sending data from users’ hard disks to the Church of Scientology. The idea so disconcerted the Government of Germany (where the CoS is outlawed) that it demanded that Microsoft show it the source code before approving Windows 2000 for government use. Microsoft refused but provided a tool to delete the utility. That didn’t help quash the rumours.

So, what kind of message does Scientology have that it can only get it across by tricking or forcing people into hearing it?

Of course, the CoS is famously averse to criticism. A book, The Complex, by ex-Scientology warrior John Duignan remains unavailable from Amazon’s UK store – indeed, as far as I can work out, it’s unavailable from all branches of Amazon except the US. Even there, it was pulled for a while, with rumours that Tom Cruise himself was behind the intimidation of Amazon.

What is it they fear? If what the Scientologists claim is true, we would all migrate naturally to their way of thinking. If the attacks on the cult are untrue, surely they could gain no traction against the power of the church’s message.

Any philosophy or science that relies on legal threats, intimidation, coercion, violence and forcible indoctrination to assure belief and allegiance among its members is inherently suspect. These are the tools of totalitarianism, and totalitarian regimes – as we all know – are built on lies.

The Complex by John Duignan is available from:  Amazon.com

Bill’s at it again…

And then his ‘apology’…