Should Atheists Stand Up For Religiously Persecuted?

While I do support the right of people to hold whatever beliefs they do (mostly on the grounds that you can’t stop them), most of the ‘persecution’ that I hear about is not because of beliefs but because of actions. I especially don’t see proselytizing as any kind of human right to be fought for and won.

That said, there are also those places where the religion is inextricably wound up with culture and tradition, and the ‘persecution’ is as much based on those as on religion. Those are some often horrible situations, but for religious types here to characterize it as religious persecution and ignore the other aspects looks like a way of extending their favorite “poor us, we are so victimized and downtrodden” gambit into places where it is a grotesque simplification of complicated cultural, historical, and often ethnic situations that won’t be improved by mischaracterizing them.

Or I could have just said “no, bad idea” and left it at that.

I am more for “free thinking” than I am for atheism.

But I am not for freedom so long as the said religion doesn’t step on the rights of others.

This strikes me as being similar to the writings of certain anti-feminist men who complain about how women’s organizations do not stand up for them when other men terrorize them.

Atheists are a minority group here in America in literal size and resources. We’re the ones with less political power and have a lesser social standing than our theistic counterparts. Organizing for our own benefit is hard enough.

On the other hands, theists count for approximately 80 to 90 percent of the population. They, as a collective group not individuals and discluding in-house spats, are further up the ladder when it comes to political power and social standing. Their groups are often internationally organized.

To put it bluntly, they have the means to deal with their own problems without needing an atheist to help them out.

Sure, they might give each other hell, but that’s the nature of the beast when you declare that anyone who isn’t for you is against you.

Sorry, but it’s my firm belief that it is those with the most political power and social standing that have the duty, if you will, to stand up for the small(er) guy, not vice versa.

Anything else reeks of blind privilege, IMHO.

Actually, Michael, I think your shark analogy is fairly apropos. Yes, I realize religious believers are technically rational people. The problem is that their faith so often prevents them using that reason, at least in ways where there’s a chance their faith might be undermined by it. Like the shark, they’re not likely to see their saviors as friends.

Still, that persecution is wrong should be a principle that trumps most and maybe all other considerations. (Although, as Gullwatcher points out, a lot of what’s called “persecution” isn’t really.)

Shouldn’t this be the work of secular groups like the ACLU? I think atheist groups could offer statements of support, but it’s kind of like asking Habitat for Humanity to help AIDs relief efforts. It’s just not what they do.

Hemant wrote: “Do we want to see less religion in the world or would we rather see religious equality for all?” I think that is a critical question, and I think that is where we see a lot of divide in the atheist/humanist movement. I fall on the “religious freedom for all” side. I see no need for religion to be abolished from the world, as long as we have peaceful, secular government, respect for science, and respect for diversity and freedom. As a nonbeliever, I want my rights respected, and I want to make sure that a universal respect of freedom of religion includes me. But I do not want to limit the religion of anyone else, assuming, as the caveat always is when it comes to discussions on rights, that their religion does not try to infringe on my rights or those of anyone else.

So I do think we should speak out against all religious persecution. Of course, I know that a lot of people lose heart to do so when the Religious Right in the United States calls it persecution against Christians whenever they are not allowed to put a ten commandments monument up at a courthouse or impose creationism on a school.

But the reality of persecution against Christians in China and other countries is real, and it is of major concern. We should also be concerned with the influence of Hindu fundamentalism in India, which has been a powerful political force there and has been a problem for India’s many religious minorities (including the 10 percent of the country that is Muslim).

And personally I am very concerned that some European countries are not doing what they should to respect religious and cultural diversity.

KC,

As long as they are a powerful collective group not a group of individuals who are being framed to justify discrimination. For example, men are not a collective group. A women’s organisation has many legitimate reasons for favouring giving support to a woman over a man, but none of those reasons include discriminating based on gender. At the basis of feminism should be a strong dislike for gender discrimination. If an organisation acts from female chauvinism then I wouldn’t even call them feminist.

The same with theists, it’s true that theists increasingly join together, sometimes to oppose secularism. A theist doesn’t automatically belong to a powerful collective of theists, or in fact may choose to disassociate themselves with such groups. We shouldn’t be punishing them for that, it would be in our interests to encourage that.

Atheists do not have the ability to make any stand collectively, since we honestly are a minority group ourselves, without much political presence, and as likely to be persecuted as any religious minority. But, ideally, atheists would be opposed to actual religious persecution. Whether we can do anything about it is another issue, but just because we think that religion itself is a crock doesn’t mean that we can’t oppose discrimination against individuals for subscribing to the wrong form of idiocy.

I especially don’t see proselytizing as any kind of human right to be fought for and won.

Whether you like the message being spread or not, freedom to “proselytize” is just another name for “freedom of speech”, and it is a human right.

I’ll defend people’s rights to believe in whatever they choose to believe in.

This is like saying “I support people’s rights to choose whatever race they want to be.” People cannot choose their beliefs.

Whether you like the message being spread or not, freedom to “proselytize” is just another name for “freedom of speech”, and it is a human right.

I disagree with you a lot, Mike Clawson, but not this time. Furthermore, there are versions of Christianity where “witnessing” is very much a part of the religion. Denying these people the right to proselytize is as much as denying them the right to practice their religion. Sure, you can go too far with that….

Here’s a podcast about the CFI/UN situation:

Go to “rd15 The Soul of Secularism with guest Austin Dacey” here:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/reasonabledoubts/Msxh

I actually have no problem with door-to-door proselytizing. As long as people are protected when they say they are not interested. I think religious people should have the right to proselytize as long as we have the right to disagree with and/or reject the message and tell people to get lost.

That being said, I still oppose “faith-based” plans that would give federal money to groups who provide for a need (shelter for the homeless, etc.) and then force those people to hear a gospel presentation or go through a Bible study in order to get the food, shelter, etc.

I cannot think of an atheist group that meets that criteria. But then, atheism is not an organized religion, and what groups we do have tend to be rather small. After all, why form our own group to fight discrimination (or poverty, or whatever) when there are excellent secular organizations which we can join without “ethical issues”.

I myself donate and volunteer for several such organizations.

As a counterpoint, atheists experience substantial discrimination throughout the world. Many countries have laws banning or limiting atheism; and in many of those atheism is a capital offence. Even in western nations discrimination against us is common – several US states ban us from public office, there are numerous cases of violence recorded against us every year, and the courts are filled with cases of various forms of discrimination – employment, housing and so forth. Most concerning, violence against our children in schools is common place, and complaints to school boards are seldom taken seriously.

So I’d ask the Christians the opposite question – Christianity is huge, with over a billion members world-wide. There are hundreds, if not thousands of large Christian organizations around the world. How many of those have fought against the rampant anti-atheist discrimination found throughout the world?

Does the ACLU routinely “defend” “persecuted” Christians? Seems like most of their work is in the secular arena.

Perhaps I’m wrong, and if so, I’m sure some of the fine folks here will educate me..
🙂

I have been saying for a long time that protecting the rights of the faithful to appropriately worship (and even evangelize) as they see fit ought to be a high priority for atheists. Our rights as non-religious people to be free from governmental imposition of religion are the same thing as the rights of religious people to freely practice as they choose. The freedom in question is the right of people to decide for themselves whether and what they believe. Just because we make different choices than them does not excuse us from honoring their rights — if their rights are diminished, so are ours.

Very well said. I think this is exactly right. And speaking as a Christian, it’s also a good reason for religious people to stick up for the rights of atheists to speak & practice their views freely as well.

The bottom line question for me is: Am I ever OK with someone having their rights trampled if they’re someone I disagree with or dislike?
I’d have to answer with a big, fat NO!

We can argue about where to draw the line between rights and privileges, but if I see someone denied their rights as I understand them and can help, I hope that I would.

BZ,

Depends what you mean by proselytize. If people are speaking in public, that’s a necessary right. If people are going door to door, they’re entering the private sphere. People have a right to limit who can contact them in their own homes.

I agree, freedom of expression does not mean freedom to make unsolicited calls into someone’s private life, whether to home, phone, or internet. Proselytizing isn’t protected, speech is, if that speech is used for proselytizing then it’s protected.

Sanguinity,

A perfect case is this one: an Apache child barred from kindergarten for wearing his hair long. The Christian school administrator justifies his position with a bunch of stupid ideas that atheists are forever frustrated by. (He wants the kid to prove that his religion isn’t just made up — can HE prove that? Also, the administrator privileges religion as a justifiable reason for having different practices, privileging religion over any other possible reason for having a different cultural practice, such as having a different culture.)

I don’t mind rules, although I’d like them to be justified. I don’t like privileging religion as a way of getting out of rules. I don’t think culture should be privileged, that’s just as bad as religion, it’s not really for cultural reasons at all. Culture is what we make of it, culture is not just tradition, not just what the majority say, or authorities say it is. “I don’t want to” is a much better reason than religion or culture. All religion is made up, if I want to get out of rules that religious people get out of I’m becoming a pastafarian.

I’m for freedom of speech. Soliciting door-to-door, however, is not a right, and people and organizations can and do restrict who they want to communicate with on their property.

And besides, religious people, especially Christians in the US, are unfairly privileged, and any attempt to take that privilege away from them is seen as persecution. It’s amazing that people would actually believe that not paying taxes combined with the ability to deny a couple adoption (or even a freaking pavillion. for renting which they will pay. which they let everyone else use) because they are same-sex partners is a more fundamental right than the right of two people who love each other to be together (which many same-sex partners from different countries are simply denied; and getting married in one of the states that recognize same-sex marriage would only make matters worse for them as it is not recognized federally, but USCIS would be able to use the records of their marriage to bar the foreign partner from entering the US on a non-immigrant visa because of the motive to stay in the country illegally). And yet I hear Christians employ this reasoning all the time.

Or take Texas, for instance. The removal of children from the FLDS nutjobs at the YFZ ranch was a big deal here in Utah because (I suspect) as much as Mormons would like to distance themselves from their fundie offshoot, it hit too close to home. The essences of the two belief systems are identical: pay, pray, obey. Except one of them allows you to wear stuff other than frilly pastel dresses, and polygyny is postponed until the afterlife. So yeah, a lot of Mormons here felt that since the initial phone call to CPS was fake, the evidence of abuse, neglect, and the fact that it was basically a single household with householders not knowing how many people lived in their own house that they found upon investigation should be discarded and the children just be left there for those lunatics to do whatever they please with. And bizarrely, no thought at all was given to whether or not the 16-year-olds who were “legally” married to old geezers were coerced or had any choice in the matter. If it’s on paper, it’s no child abuse, or so the argument went. And then Texas supreme court decides that brainwashing girls to prepare to be raped by 50-year-olds does not put children in imminent danger and therefore, they should just be reunified with their parents. Apparently, no one there has heard of severe emotional abuse, not to mention the fact that there is clear intent to engage in or allow child sexual abuse in the future and blind obedience to their imprisoned prophet who has himself basically raped everything that moves, including his own sister, niece and nephews. Yet this whole incident was largely seen as persecution of FLDS adults. Are you shitting me?

And soon after that, the same court ruled that it’s okay to traumatize children and drag them around the carpet by their hair if you think you’re exorcising evil spirits from them. Whew! that was a close one. Poor church almost got persecuted by a teenager who almost killed herself as a result of their freedom of religious expression.

I agree with Dawkins 100% that religious indoctrination of children is child abuse, but society at large disagrees. Including the ACLU, by the way.

So if protecting children from harmful indoctrination is persecution, I’m all for persecuting the sky fairy’s favorite people. If the kids grow up and truly decide that believing in talking snakes and interbreeding between gods and humans makes sense to them, and they should try to convince other adults that those things are real, let them. But I have a hunch that the number of fundamentalists, if not religious people in general, would drop significantly.

I also oppose any kind of exemptions from laws or rules of conduct on the grounds of religion which are not available to the irreligious. But violence and infringing on people’s personal freedoms just because of their beliefs is pretty wrong.

Do we want to see less religion in the world or would we rather see religious equality for all?

False dichotomy.

It really all comes down to whether or not a law is specifically discriminating against a religious group. Not just specifically affecting a religious group, but discriminating – something that puts an unfair burden on them for an insufficient reason, basically.

A local law forbidding door-to-door marketing would be perfectly fair. A local law forbidding door-to-door proselytizing but not sales and fundraisers, etc. would be discriminatory.

A recent case that’s fairly relevant is laid out here, and it’s actually a Jewish family who’s being ridiculously targeted by their condo board. I think it’s important for anyone who cares about justice to speak out in support of minorities facing discrimination, whether as part of a group or simply as an individual, like Richard Wade did by sending his letter. If more people took an interest in across-the-board freedom, every minority would be much better off, IMO.

The comments that people should have freedom of religion, but not a right to proselytize don’t strike me as particularly well thought-out. Saying that people have the right to believe something, but they have to keep quiet about it, is not a particularly meaningful right. It reminds me a bit of Christian friends who have told me that anyone can be President, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack therof—it’s just that if they’re not Christian, they have to pretend that they are (seriously, I’m not making this up).

And yes, you own your home, and you have the right to turn away people who come to your door. I’m not sure how that’s relevant. The religious persecution when the government starts making decisions about which groups can come to your door and which groups can’t.

The freedom in question is the right of people to decide for themselves whether and what they believe. Just because we make different choices than them….

Very well said. I think this is exactly right.

Wrong, and wrong. I’m not sure why I have to keep pointing this out: you do not choose what you believe. You can’t; a belief is what you suspect is true about the world, and reality is not yours to specify. You see what you see, you hear what you hear, and from your experiences emerge your beliefs.

I did not choose to become an atheist. I cannot help that I find apologetics to be hokey and contrived; that I find theistic arguments inadequate; that I see no reason to suspect that anything resembling any sort of deity actually exists.

Similarly, theists are struck as they are by these things; they do somehow find the theistic premise compelling, our criticism of it less so, and they cannot choose their impression any more than we can choose ours.

Beliefs are things you have whether or not someone else thinks you should; the “right to believe” is meaningless.

I consider the answer to the “should” as obvious. It’s about freedom and repression has to be fought. No matter if believing or non-believing is right – repression is wrong.

For me, the line is drawn at proselytizing. You can believe whatever you want, but you can’t try and make others believe it too. If you’re spreading the word and the locals don’t take kindly to your badgering, you’re not being persecuted. You’re the one who’s the bully there.

This is kind of a sore subject for me, as my cousin has been a secret missionary all of her adult life, going into non-christian countries under the guise of teaching English, while her true purpose is to convert the brown people. I think her career is kind of underhanded and despicable, but at the same time if the countries she’s been to harrass/arrest/kill people who are already christian, that’s definitely not right either.

It’s true that when faced with the best confirming or disconfirming evidence we will either believe or disbelieve accordingly. Unless you’re insane, what your mind sees as reality will be what it accepts as reality.

That said, the mind is also pretty good at shuttering us to evidence it suspects might lead to uncomfortable conclusions. To use the analogy of a trial, our minds are not only the jury, they’re the judge. Sometimes our minds rule inadmissible evidence that could lead to a verdict we don’t like.