The Religious Must Stand Up for Atheists

The interfaith movement is beginning to rack up successes. While outbursts of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (among other expressions of prejudice against religious communities) are nothing new, the growing and remarkably diverse chorus of voices trying to drown bigots out certainly is.

To take but one recent example, when the Park51 Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan was subjected to undue criticism this past summer, the groups that gathered behind closed doors to support its besmirched but beloved leaders included atheists, Jews, Christians, Muslims and more. It was heartening -- as were the rallies led by Religious Freedom USA and New York Neighbors for American Values, which drew thousands to the streets to support the rights of all religious communities to assemble on private property. You could feel the interfaith movement surging forward on its remarkable course.

But I am uncertain, if not outright skeptical, that members of the interfaith movement would equally protect non-religious communities that come under similar scrutiny. To take a personal (and rather confessional) example, when a friend was excluded from an interfaith peace-building initiative because of being non-religious, people told him they were sorry. But nobody refused to continue participating in the group. It just didn't seem like a reason to protest the decision or leave the group altogether.

I am among those guilty of not speaking up -- cowed by diffusion of responsibility and the glow of opportunity that the group provided. I am certain, based on the numerous stories my humanist and atheist friends have told me, that this was not an isolated occurrence, nor an unusually cowardly reaction on my part. Yet it is something for which I am still performing teshuvah -- answering as a Jew and human being for wrongdoing to my friend, in this case through wrongful inaction.

Why is it that when someone criticizes or excludes atheists, it feels like the interfaith movement forgets its identity, if only for a split second? Why is it that well-meaning interfaith leaders defy their identities and fail to speak out against those who threaten or undermine the status of the non-religious? Individually, we may comfort our friends, but by and large we are not sticking our necks out, writing op-eds, holding protests and publicly condemning those who single out the non-religious.

In part, I would suggest that members of the interfaith movement have not yet developed reflexes for protecting the non-religious. There is somewhat less of a history of hatred for atheists in the West (and even less education about the hatred that has been made manifest), so it does not always register in our minds when someone speaks ill of atheists in a way that it would if someone spoke similarly about people of a particular religious group.

But guilt for the repeated historical failure of Western countries to protect religious minorities is hardly an excuse for inaction in the present to protect the non-religious. It is time that we, most especially in the interfaith movement, recognize, denounce and speak out against anti-atheist bigotry.

Admittedly, many religious individuals feel intellectually and theologically challenged by atheists. But this challenge is one we must greet and learn from, rather than respond to with aggression, passive and active alike. If God is truly powerful, non-believers can hardly break our belief, much less the Divine we believe in. If God is loving, then why should we hate -- or ignore hatred directed towards others? If God is a Creator, how can we allow others to speak ill of the atheists and non-believers God gave life to? Non-belief is a reality for hundreds of millions of people around the world, and the religious can hardly condemn atheists without running into contradictions rendered by their faith.

If religious affiliation is a protected category in our laws, our minds and our actions, so too must non-affiliation and atheism. The interfaith movement must lead the way, and so too must its believing members. They -- we -- cannot allow this double-standard to persist.

This article was originally published on the Huffington Post.

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of PeaceNext to add comments!

Join PeaceNext

Comment by Grigori Rho Gharveyn on March 19, 2011 at 3:32pm: We missed one critical point Athiesm IS a religious choice, and should be included in any convocations of religions who aspire to world peace.

Enjoy!

Comment by Grigori Rho Gharveyn on March 19, 2011 at 3:29pm: Dear brother Joshua,

Thank you for standing up for Atheists and Agnostics. We are sometimes a Theist who is also an Atheist and an Agnostic.

We can fit all of these views comfortably within ourselves by reframing the contexts in which we regard our perceived relationships to these philosophies.

We won't go into our own beliefs here, they are a matter of record in this blog.

There may be several points to remember with regard to how atheism and agnosticism fit in with religion.

As we see it all religion reflects our personal relationships with our Divines, whatever we may call our Divines and by whatever ways we may inadequately try to define Them.

Atheists make a choice to deny the existence of any Divines.

That is their relationship choice, a choice we would never deny to them.

Who really knows?

It may be the case that atheists are correct.

All of our knowledge about our Divines is really nothing more than our opinions which we emotionally weigh to a degree where we choose to regard our opinions as facts.

In this context, we may regard faith as an exceptionally powerful deeply invested belief in something that may or may not be true or rational.

Our investments in our beliefs include emotional, intellectual, social, and cultural investments.

We naturally become defensive of anything we are deeply vested in.

Atheists appear to directly challenge and deny the fundamental principles of Theists, the existence of Divines.

It is therefore natural for many religious people to feel threatened by atheists and to reactively respond defensively or aggressively to atheists because their cultural auto-immune systems have conditioned them to do so.

Conversely, atheists have traditionally been a persecuted minority group, consequently it is natural for their own cultural auto-immune systems to also respond reactively in defensive and aggresive postures.

What may be most important to remember about all of this is that we are all human beings who must learn to responsibly share our worlds with each other for our mutual benefit and survival regardless of our individual or collective opinions or any alleged truth values our opinions may possibly have.

The dialogue about whether or not our Divines may exist is irrelevent to whether or not our Divines actually do exist.

Neither the existence nor the non-existence of any Divines may be proven, this is a fact established by epistemology.

However, the tensions of these dialogues may have purposes independently of the relevance of these dialogues.

We may all learn and grow in response to these tensions.

Alas, some of the elements popularized in these dialogues are being modified into brain-washing tools. People on all sides of this issue are being trained not to think, but to react.

Reactivity is a far more serious concern than is the outcome of any dialogues debating the possible existence or non-existence of our Divines.

The information age is transforming the invisible landscapes of our ideas and cultures.

In worlds relying on physical speed and power for survival, reactive conditioning once had very high survival values, However in our new information age worlds reactivity inhibits communications, and the information age is an age where facilitating improvements in our communications skills must become a higher priority for all of us.

Let us each set aside our own reactively defensive and aggressive postures and engage each other more rationally, regardless of whether our debates may adress the irrational or that which may transcend rationality as well.

Namaste

Comment by Matthew Higgins on February 1, 2011 at 10:35pm: What a terrific article! This revived within me fields of thought regarding struggles towards tolerance of atheism as a 'religious' choice and the dynamic variability of spirituality. Thank you!

Comment by N.Shubhakara Jain on January 28, 2011 at 5:19am: religious education , real education

Education is nothing but educating about life journey from birth to death.It is not training of some subject. then only the purpose of education complet. God or the great people who enlightened the religion has given sufficient knowledge about healthy and wealthy journey of life. In case religious education implemented (gist of all religion) educated peoples comes out of the university,anti people convert as for people. Just listen God or nature

Comment by Ian Fraser on January 26, 2011 at 7:49pm: Thank you, Joshua, for this thought-provoking article. I cannot help but feel you are being somewhat hard on yourself, feeling that you have sinned for not supporting your atheist friend's participation in that particular peace-building initiative. Clearly the group as a whole felt the intended activity was functionally an interfaith activity.

That said, I agree with the main thrust of your comments - that the interfaith movement should not accept social condemnation or discrimination against atheists as individuals or as a group. However, for an organisation or a social movement which defines itself as "interfaith" or "inter-religious" it is not simply a matter of semantics to exclude a person or group of people who have no faith or religion. Non-exclusion blurs the definition of the group and, more importantly, blurs the function(s) of the group or movement.

As a member of Peace Next, I am pleased that the Council for PWR agrees to the inclusion of atheists and agnostics in Peace Next and accepts their attendance at Parliaments of the world's religions. This inclusion broadens the philosophical scope of perspective that can be represented and potentially broadens discussion on any topic. This welcoming attitude is a model for every other interfaith group to consider emulating. However I am reluctant to argue that all interfaith groups must follow this lead and I would not feel it discriminatory in a negative sense if any group specified that their activities and discussions were only for people of faith, just as intra-religious activity is only for people of one faith tradition or religion.

And I have too much respect for atheism to argue that atheism can be regarded as a "faith" or "religion". Again, the very meaning of the words excludes such blurring of usage. I do not know any atheist who would be happy to have her/his philosophical perspective described as a "faith" or a "religion".

In summary, let us always oppose condemnation and belittlement of people for their philosophical perspective, but without blurring the great diversity of movements and groups in society.

Peace,

Ian