Northman's Fury

The Washington Post today is running two stories about the rising influence and political activism of non-believers in both America and Europe. In one, the reason given for the increasingly vocal non-believer community is a backlash against the quite vocal philosophies of the religious extremists.

"There is a feeling that religion is being forced on an unwilling public, and now people are beginning to speak out against what they see as rising Islamic and Christian militancy," Sanderson said.

. . .

"Where religion is weak, people don't feel a need to organize against it," said Phil Zuckerman, an American academic who has written extensively about atheism around the globe.

He and others said secular groups are also gaining strength in countries where religious influence over society looms large, including India, Israel and Turkey. "Any time we see an outspoken movement against religion, it tells us that religion has power there," Zuckerman said.

Certainly this is the feeling I get. Generally, when the news shows want a "religious" guest perspective, they invite nutjobs like Bill Donahue to give them. The impression given is that the Christian Right is actually representative of the Christian community. Against that sort of religiosity, those of us who don't share their faith can't help but want to defend our own way of life, not that I'm anywhere near worried enough at this point to join any atheist organizations.

The biggest problem I have with such, is that they have developed their own extremist fringe, which, like Christopher Hitchens, attack every whiff of religious observance regardless whether or not it is harmful. (Honestly, slamming Mother Teresa? Come on!)

The majority of nonbelievers say they are speaking out only because of religious fanatics. But some atheists are also extreme, urging people, for example, to blot out the words "In God We Trust" from every dollar bill they carry.

Gaining political clout and access to television and radio airtime is the goal of many of these groups. With a higher profile, they say, they could, for instance, lobby for all religious rooms in public hospitals to be closed, as a response to Muslims demanding prayer rooms because Christians have chapels.

I find folks like those little better than the religious fanatics they supposedly oppose. It is probably inevitable, though. It's very hard for tolerant, rational, and moderate individuals to gin up the passion to organize in general, so it usually gets left to people who are less of all three.

I certainly don't believe that the pursuit of a secular society is only the best interests of atheists. America's founding fathers understood that any state-approved religious structure would be harmful to believers. And the examples given in the article above show that rigidity in belief acts to destroy that belief in many people.

Wright, 59, said he was overwhelmed by a feeling that religion had become a negative influence in his life and the world. Although he once considered becoming an Anglican vicar, he suddenly found that religion represented nothing he believed in, from Muslim extremists blowing themselves up in God's name to Christians condemning gays, contraception and stem cell research.

I could probably write more about my beliefs in this matter, but fortunately, Mike from Ottawa did an excellent job of expressing what I think many people, believers and non-believers alike, feel about attempts by certain groups to make their religious belief more dominant in our society.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Words to live by. As are these:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

and its corollary from libertarian thought

"No one has the right to initiate force against anyone or their property, or to delegate the initiation of force to others. One may only use force in self-defense."

Boiled down, these two sayings are the messages of every religion - the rest, as the old story goes, is commentary.

. . .

Religion is a private, personal matter. It is the guide to the individual, because when it comes right down to it, you can only control yourself and not others. Not without tyranny. This is the kind of religion as practiced by the majority of Christians - learning the lessons taught by their faith, applying them in their personal lives. Living by example, not by force. This is also how the vast majority of Muslim live. And Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists - all religions.

. . .

Indeed I suggest you consider looking at it this way: so long as you or your property are not harmed or taken, what other people do or believe makes no difference to you. Live and let live.

This is the creed I try to live by. I am an atheist and, frankly, think any belief in a God or gods is ridiculous. But I have many religious friends that I get along with just fine, because their belief and practice of their religion "neither breaks my legs nor picks my pockets." I have no problems with my Sikh neighbours, my Muslim friends or my Christian wife. We live in peace and harmony, thank you, and have no need of your "Christian" government or desire to live under it.

But I suspect, deep down, this is not really about something personal like religion anyway. Its really about power and authority. Your religion is merely a vehicle to power, so you may take control of the state, in order to force upon us your religious views, to coerce us and enslave us to do your bidding. You aren't religious, you are totalitarian, authoritarian dictators in waiting, dressed in preachers clothing. You want to rule over us for your own selfish reasons, even though you will certain say "its for our own good". You are, for lack of a better term, evil.

You are the Canadian equivalent, in every way, of the Taleban - the "Christaleban". The only difference between you and them is the length of the beards and the colour of the clothes.

So let me put this as simply and straight forward as I can:

You will not win. You will never be "ON THE WINNING SIDE in the culture war that is being waged today for the soul of Canada." You are advocates of slavery, not freedom and you will be fought at every turn.

I personally promise you that you will be fought and defeated by any means necessary. I have every right and every intention of defending my family, my property and my liberty from attack. I will defend these things with every peaceable means available, but through violence if necessary. I will not sit back and let you tell my daughter she does not control her own body, or tell my wife she cannot do any job she wishes. I will never be subjugated by those who would condemn me or my friends because we choose not to believe your religious nonsense. I will not stand by while my neighbours are oppressed and forced to convert, or have their personal religions destroyed.

The only person qualified to know what "is for my own good" is me, not you. Not your church and not the 2000+ year old writings of long-dead Middle Eastern mystics.

First you will be ignored. If that does not work, you will be defied. And if that does not work, you will be fought, to the death if need be.

Is that clear enough? Do you understand?

The choice is now yours. You can choose live in peace and freely practice and believe you religion side by side with the rest of us. We will not bother you if you do not bother us. Or you can choose this route of culture war and attempt to use the power of the state to enforce your narrow views on everyone. The first is open and tolerant, the second is authoritarian and enslaving.

I am willing to live and let live, are you?

Choose wisely, and let me assure you, you will not prevail.

Granted, he puts that last bit a little stronger than I would, and I can't guarantee such people won't win the culture war, only that they won't find it easy.

I have no problem with religious belief. I know from my youth that it can be a great comfort and source of strength, plus I'd have to sever relations with pretty much my entire family if I felt belief in God was a bad thing. I begrudge nobody their faith, and in certain circumstances, can even envy it. But I will resist the imposition of belief upon myself or others. Faith is, and should always remain, a personal matter.

Anyway, for all the talk about the growing power of us non-believers, I'd say we still have a long way to go.

In a nationwide poll last year by University of Minnesota researchers, Americans rated atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants and other minority groups in "sharing their vision of American society." They also associated atheists with everything from criminal behavior to rampant materialism. According to a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll, more than half would not vote for an atheist for president.

"Sigh"

A fascinating article in the Turkish Daily News by Mustafa Akyol:

Many years ago, I came across a book, which claimed to explain “Israeli terrorism” in the light of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was full of photos showing Israeli soldiers attacking and harassing Palestinians, and presented huge captions that included verses from the Old Testament, and especially the Book of Joshua. If the Israelis were breaking the bones of a Palestinian youngster — a globally notorious scene from the ‘80s — then the caption would include a verse with something like “Thou shall break their bones.” The book's argument was blunt and simple: The Israelis were torturing a nation because that was what their religion ordered them to do.

The more I learned about the Old Testament and the politics of the Middle East, the more I realized that what the book presented was not analysis but anti-Semitic propaganda. It is true that Israel's 40-year-long occupation is a pretty brutal one, and that the Old Testament included some belligerent passages, but the reality was much more complex. I noticed that Jewish religious sources also include many words of wisdom and compassion, and that there are so many Jews who are willing to have peace with their Arab neighbors.

None of this is particularly surprising to me, and I think this was a good example for the reason that most of those that would slam Islam as the reason behind violent Muslims will also reflexively dismiss any intimation that the reason for less than savoury Israeli actions has to do with Judaism. The reality of course is far more muddled. Every religion has its extremists, and they will find some level of justification in their religious texts for what they do if they look hard enough and interpret narrowly enough. And governments and people can do bad things without any particular ideological component outside of the fact that they want more than they have.

And there are always those on the other side willing to aid and abet religious or cultural justifications to further their own goals, along with many who just need to find some way to explain seemingly irrational acts in a rational way. Suicide bombings are a good example of this. When it was Japanese Kamikazes, it was explained as a result of the Bushido code. When the Tamils introduced the suicide belt, it was explained as the Hindu belief in reincarnation that allowed them to sacrifice themselves in this manner. When Muslims took up the tactic, the fictional “72 virgins” reward for martyrdom was invented. In all cases, it is far more about the political, military, and social situation the people find themselves in rather than any easily explainable beliefs.

In recent years, I often recall my experience with that anti-Semitic book and the way it misread the Hebrew Scriptures, because I see that more and more people are doing the same thing with the Koran. When Islamic terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda bomb innocents, or when some fringe imam in a radical mosque preaches hatred toward non-Muslims, these greenhorn “Islam experts” find some passages in the Koran, which apparently justify such extremists. No wonder that these extremists themselves refer to similar passages in the Koran or other Islamic sources. The situation is very similar to the strange agreement between the anti-Semites and the Jewish terrorists on the wrong notion that Judaism justifies carnage.

For the extremists like al Qaeda, the reason is simple; if you can turn the West against all Muslims, then all Muslims will have to fight the West, whether they believe in your philosophy or not. Most of the “experts” have less than idealistic reasons for their choices as well. Playing to the baser emotions of crowds has ever been one of the easiest paths to power.

Akyol goes on to explain how taking a phrase out of context, and ignoring the practice of Islamic scholarly tradition called “tafseer” has led to the mistaken impression that the Koran forbids friendship between Muslims and Christians and Jews. He then quotes passages that make it clear that the Koran doesn’t condemn Christians or Jews as unbelievers and that the only people Muslims should not take as friends are those “who have fought you in religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion.”

A quite reasonable position to take and in line with most cultures dislike of quislings, though such a passage doesn’t bode well for the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, where expulsions have and continue to take place.

Still, I find the article quite good. Purposeful misinterpretation is the tool by which the masses are generally led into stupidity and better understanding may keep us from continuing to make such foolish mistakes.