Atheists and Islam, Part IV.

This is Part IV of a three part series. Previously, Part I, Part II, Part III.

Atheists and Islam: Part IV, Enlightenment Values.

So, what does all of this have to do with atheists? The risk is that an aversion to Islam could push some in the atheist community towards condoning violations of freedom of religion and expression. These are two of the central values of Enlightenment thought, and the best angels of the Enlightenment spirit are the cornerstones on which all free, rational discourse relies. Call me an Enlightenment fundamentalist if you will, but these are two principles which should never be compromised.

My concern is that it is too easy for us to point our finger at Islamist terror and conclude in a self-satisfied way that this proves our point about religion better than anything. And perhaps it does – after all I am not denying that the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam plays an important role in encouraging the violence in the Middle East. But to leave it there is to tempt us into being intellectually lazy, and once you get lazy, you also get defensive and reactive. During my discussion with Aslan, he expressed surprise at my assertion that all the atheists I know are opposed to the minaret ban and the ban on the veil – and as you can see, this has been the case at this blog. Aslan however went as far as to say that the willingness of atheists to circumvent religious freedom in the name of opposing Islam in fact characterizes the majority of our community.

The idea that this might be true distressed me. Therefore, I decided to do a little research on the question, and spent several hours trying to find commentary on atheist blogs concerning the question. What I found was mostly reassuring – at The Friendly Atheist, for example, Hemant Mehta came down clearly on the side of opposing the minaret ban in Switzerland as a violation of religious freedom, and of the extensive thread that followed, I counted only five discrete commentators who supported the ban. The Freethinker fared less well, containing about 20 supporters of the ban in the thread about Switzerland but at least an equal number of people opposed to it. (I also counted as ‘supportive of the ban’ people who complained that the call to prayer was the cause of their support, although they are misinformed as the call to prayer was already not allowed in Switzerland.) The Freethinker, it occurred to me, is a British blog, and it was suggested to me by other atheists that the divide between European style atheism and American style atheism could be an important part of what was going on here – and indeed, Aslan had just returned from a trip to Europe where he had been dealing with that particular brand of opposition to religion for several weeks. Perhaps this helps explain his surprise at the dedication many atheists have to the principle of freedom of worship – perhaps also, as I suggested to him, this has something to do with the split between what one hears at a grassroots level, and what one hears from the loudest, most visible members of a community. Indeed, even in Switzerland agnostics and atheists actually voted against the minaret ban in higher numbers than religious believers.

Continue reading…

Ebert on women and religion

Roger Ebert has an interesting post up about patriarchy and religion, particularly Christianity. He posits that Church teachings are less important than the impulses than underwrite them:

I am not concerned so much with Church teachings, but with the way men’s minds work. To put it bluntly, I believe the world is patriarchal because men are bigger and stronger than women, and can beat them up.

But obviously, keeping the dogma around isn’t helping matters:

I watched the debate last week between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair. Their subject was: “Be it resolved, that religion is a force for good in the world.” The most stimulating thing about the debate was that it was held at all. How often do we ever hear fundamental questions debated in a civil manner between intelligent speakers? Would there be an audience on cable for weekly debates between college teams? In America, debating was the leading intercollegiate sport before the introduction of football.

Blair and Hitchens made points one might agree with, and points one might not. At one point, Hitchens asked Blair a question that hung in the air for a second and went unanswered, because Blair must have had no answer. This was the question:

“Is it good for the world to consider women as an inferior form, as all religions do?”

Catholicism? Really?

Last night, as I was watching the recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair, a question that has occurred to me several times before popped up again: why would anyone in their right mind convert to Catholicism?

Now of course for an atheist the larger question is why would anyone in their right mind convert to anything. But let’s put that aside for a second and recognize that, as Sam Harris has pointed out on multiple occasions, not all religions are equally pernicious. Let us now narrow our choices to the various branches of Christianity. On nearly every count, Protestantism seems more intellectually rigorous, more internally coherent, and less prone to the grievous abuses of power that having such an absurd institution as the Pope seems to encourage. So, what the fuck, Tony Blair? And you’re British! Really now.

But I am biased. I find the intellectual history of Protestant theology to be gripping and at times even inspiring. The usual Christian faults aside, such as his anti-Semitism, Martin Luther was a very admirable person and I am quite fond of him. (Calvin, however, seems like a complete dick to me.) At least Protestant theology is more consistent with scripture and, moreover, contained elements of egalitarianism which would later help things like democracy seem thinkable. And Protestantism is also, of course, largely responsible for our modern concepts of individuality and autonomy.

On the other end of this, what does Catholicism have to offer? A church dogma which still claims that the Eucharist ritual can magically transform wine into blood and bread into flesh, a medieval position on contraception, a rigid, hierarchical structure prone to abuse and corruption, and priests who can molest their young parishioners and be assured that the Church will let them get away with it. And that is only recently – the history of the Catholic Church reads like a satire devised by an enemy of religion, designed exclusively to show how religion enables ignorance, hypocrisy, and just plain absurdity to reach limitless heights in the pursuit of power. Like when there were two Popes in the fourteenth century? Yeah, comically ridiculous.

And who would want to give up talking to God directly, as the Protestants claim we can all do? Is it more attractive for some people to have men with special outfits designated as especially in tune with God? Is it the ritual of confession that is so assuring and therapeutic that it trumps all the freedom from medieval dogma various strains of Protestantism have to offer? The only thing I can think of that the Catholic Church clearly does better than Protestantism is art. Catholic Churches are beautiful – Protestant churches, thanks to their founders’ suspicion that anything that brings one joy is suspicious, less so. But they are catching up. There are not a lot of Puritans left in the modern world. [And really, if you are all about the art you could just join the Anglican Church, which is basically Catholicism Lite.]

Again, I guess I am not supposed to have such a strong opinion on this considering that I believe all forms of Christianity are essentially rubbish. But Protestantism did help encourage some wonderful things in Western civilization, even if we got an extra dose of anxiety for every ounce of individuality we gained. But Catholicism? For what do I have Catholicism to thank? Tony Blair, what are you thinking? And don’t just tell me it is because your wife is Catholic. I expect intellectual justification for this decision.

Episode: #015 for Thursday, May 13, 2010

Episode #15 airs, including topics:

* Arizona’s Immigration Law & the Church’s response

* Christopher Hitchens and the French Burqa Ban

* Secular Ethics Class in Australia (Update)

* Scientific Principles Worth Knowing (which counter religious theory)

* Pope (sort of) Takes Responsibility for Church Abuses

As usual, please use the comments section below to let us know what you think of the show!

 Episode: #015 [56:28] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (2)

Christopher Hitchens Weighs in on the French Burqa Ban

Christopher Hitchens has written an article for Slate.com addressing the complicated matter of European immigration law, specifically the French burqa ban. From the article:

This is why, in many Muslim societies, such as Tunisia and Turkey, the shrouded look is illegal in government buildings, schools, and universities. Why should Europeans and Americans, seeking perhaps to accommodate Muslim immigrants, adopt the standard only of the most backward and primitive Muslim states?