Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Defend and protect Atheism around the world, by Anne Humphreys
When I asked to speak on the topic of "Defend and protect atheism around the world, I was immediately struck by the magnitude of the subject. Think about that. Think social barriers, political and cultural that we must overcome. Think about all the work that awaits us. One of the things I say to the American public in discussing these issues is that when you walk around Washington, it is striking to see how every organization and every interest group is represented there. There are over 30 000 registered lobbyists in the capital of our nation. And almost every religious group has an office there. They represent the interests of the churches the mosques and temples, and they spend millions of dollars to ensure that these interests are protected and that their projects become law. This is reproduced in each state capitals across North America.
Religious groups have enormous cultural and political machinery to form effective public opinion and mobilize their supporters. When I speak of "religious fundamentalists", you probably think a person without education, a snake charmer unadorned, foaming at the mouth that curses spewing from the Bible, but the United States, the Christian Evangelists and fundamentalists have become political cadres to the edge. They control the Republican Party. They have radio and television, and even extremists like Pat Robertson and James Dobson are wooed by the secular media. The Association of American Family boasts flood elected to Congress with 50 000 letters, faxes and phone calls in 24 hours - and that helps determine what legislation is passed and is named in the court order. They actually represent a political machine that no politician can ignore. I tell atheists that if we, we want that kind of presence, we should borrow a chapter from the manual "expertise" of the religious right. Us, we started to elect and influence politicians, so I implemented the Political Action Committee of the Godless Americans. For what is to become more effective, we must have more political savvy, we must do with our own ideas what Pat Robertson and Dobson have done with theirs. We must become "actors" of the political process.
I do not come here to tell you to do the same. It's up to you to decide. What I can tell you is that throughout the world, we would be stupid not we seize the opportunities we offer democracy. If you want to change the culture if you want to influence the course of politics must be part of it from within. This does not mean that we neglect other things for which we organized. And if we are realists, we must accept the idea that in the immediate future, at least, we will - in part - as an "outside", as a minority. We like to say how secularism spreads, how atheists "out of the closet - and all this is true - but there are opposing forces working here we have to consider. The issue is that, despite globalization and the fact that particularly in the West we believe that we are modern and universalistic - citizens of the world progresses in the direction of the Enlightenment - the growing religious fundamentalism. There are many reasons for this. But the question remains that the dissemination of "good word" positive messages and humanist atheism and secularism will remain in the course of our lives a hard and bitter battle, with advances and setbacks.
So that brings me back to the question of the beginning: how to defend ourselves and let us advance the cause of atheism and the separation of total, absolute government and religion. Secularism and the separation remains the expression of atheism in the public space. Religious belief should remain a matter of personal choice, and those who practice a religion - as members of a free society - must be free to believe in any deity or deities they choose to worship. They must be free to congregate. They must be free to practice their religion in that it does not violate the civil states "neutral." But religious beliefs should not be elevated to a status of "special duty" with special privileges, this is what happens today in the United States. We have a growing list of everyday laws that give individuals and religious groups of these "special rights" and the American Atheists fight against this legislation at state and federal level in over a decade.
And the flip side is also true. Like religions should be free to express their opinions, as odious and wrong they are, atheists should be free to criticize religion. We must be free to express our opinions in public, as "offensive or provocative or" blasphemous "that could be considered religious. And that's the word I'm looking for: Blasphemy! In his historic work "Commentary on Law ', the eighteenth-century jurist William Blackstone said that blasphemy was made" to deny the providence of God, arrogant reproach to Christ our Savior, to ridicule the holy Scriptures, or exposing to contempt and ridicule".
You can see that this definition was drafted to protect the Christian faith, and certainly in the West, the blasphemy laws have been invoked for this. Mention blasphemy to the average American, many of whom barely know the First Amendment to our Federal Constitution, and it is likely that you will respond that it is an obsolete practice. That it no longer exists. This is not the case. But in the world, laws against blasphemy indeed exist.
With the emergence of fundamentalist religions across the globe, more and more voices are calling for limits on free speech and punish those who "insult" or "defaming" a religion and those who can " Inappropriate "believers by questioning the truth, value or the historicity of these beliefs. Among the most offended many here, there is of course Islam, and let me remind you just one example of this, it should not be forgotten. This is the case of author Salman Rushdie. You remember that Mr. Rushdie is a writer of fiction, and that his novel "The Satanic Verses" which was placed at the center of international culture wars raging at that time. The book was meant to describe Mohammed as a less than favorable. When Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandi has supported the attempt of two Muslims in Parliament to ban the novel manifestations of Islamist groups were held and widespread throughout the subcontinent and in Southeast Asia and even in Great Britain. In London, the Director General of Islamic cultural center called The Satanic Verses like "the book's most offensive, filthy and offensive written by a hostile enemy to Islam".
In Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini and its officers and clerical fascist authoritarian saw red and have seized the opportunity to issue a "fatwa" or death sentence. Muslim groups around the world have demanded not only the supreme punishment for Mr. Rushdie, but also said that the novel should be banned as "blasphemous". It was already very serious. But the real threat against civil liberties would come not only excited crowd composed mostly of young bearded men in distant Arab countries, but the timidity of Western governments and other institutions, and even with the connivance of religious leaders.
Canadian authorities have found a way to please the brutality of Khomeini simply by imposing import taxes on printed copies of Rushdie's novel. In France, Cardinal Decourtray has buried the hatchet of war between sects and has appeared as an ecumenical sympathizer and accused: "Once again, believers have been offended in their faith". The Soviet ambassador in Britain seemed to agree. This is the "official atheism" or the belief that the USSR was, somehow, a model for ensuring non-believers a law firm, consistent and significant criticism of religion. Ambassador Leonid Zamyatin chose not to address the clerical fascist but rather to criticize Mr. Rushdie and those who defended it, saying that the publication of this book clearly shows the need to respect the traditions and religious sentiments. In Rome, the official Vatican newspaper headline declared: "The very attachment to our own faith encourages us to lament that the contents of the book is irreverent and blasphemous."
And then there was the American reaction. We have a conservative columnist and former political framework named Pat Buchanan who aggressively defends the religious right. He accused Rushdie of "writing a novel, defamatory, blasphemous attack against the faith of hundreds of millions of people ... an act of moral vandalism from an offender art.
Despite the notoriety of Rushdie as a progressive intellectual, an atheist who speaks on behalf of the emancipation of women, freedom of expression and values of secular culture, Mr. Rushdie found himself in need sympathy and support, even among many sectors of the elite liberal America and Europe. The silence was deafening. If you take a look at newspaper coverage of the time, you will notice how the campuses were quiet. It is also revealing to see the decision of major chain bookstores do not make or sell copies of Rushdie's novel. A bookstore that had openly and boldly sold the book was burned by a bomb, like the offices of a small weekly that had sided with the author challenged. But the chorus of Western, including many religious leaders who condemned Rushdie and demanded that the book be censored has continued to grow. The Archbishop of Canterbury said some sympathy with the fanatical Muslim instigators of violent demonstrations across Britain, condemned the book while calling for calm the offended Islamists.
To be fair, some groups have very courageously defended Mr. Rushdie, condemned the "fatwa". But yet the Rushdie incident has prompted the birth of a new concept that aims to resurrect what was seen there as a little outdated law against blasphemy. And that threat atheists today, this trend that seeks to flatter the sensibilities of the public and political elites under the cover of the innocent notion of "tolerance". The concept is that the state must intervene to "protect" religious groups and others against the remarks "insulting" or dishonorable. This is the "crime against the Almighty" to the politically correct term for allegedly preventing the "hate speech". Making fun of religion, either through a joke or a hostile intent, becomes a crime of opinion even as an act of aggression. The fact that believers can be "insulted" or "offended" to condemn the author or the critic, while it obscures the deeper truths about the falsehood, absurdity, or even the danger caused by the religion in question.
The Christian and Jewish leaders have defended Mr. Rushdie because it is better to defend any religion than to criticize one of them. They put the carts in a circle, to borrow an old expression of the American West. Can we not learn from this story? If Rushdie had written a story that mocked a politician, you would not find opponents of the politician to demand that books be banned and the author is dedicated to public obloquy. Rushdie had attacked religion. The lesson is clear. In the century that saw the expansion of secularism, religious set aside their doctrinal differences and require protection from the state under the guise of "laws against hate" and other similar laws.
Now, unless you think that the Rushdie affair is somewhat outdated in this new millennium, remember that time when we face today, the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci goes on trial in Italy for having comments in a new book that would be deemed "patently offensive to Islam and Muslims," which is prohibited in the Criminal Code of the State. Ms. Fallaci was also sued in 2004 by the head of the Union of Italian Muslims supposed to - quote - "lie, insult and defamation of Muslims around the world." And all this is made possible by the Italian law prohibits "outrage to religion." Fortunately, voices, if not in defense of what Ms. Fallaci wrote about Islam, at least to defend the right to express his opinions. The International Herald Tribune published an editorial June 9 this year: "Not everyone will agree with Fallaci or how she expresses her opinions, far from it. But the right to make unpopular statements or inadvertent, is the mark of the seal of a free society". The newspaper added that the issue of the case Fallaci "went beyond the fate of a writer. Even in these times deleterious", said the Tribune, "politicians and Western judges must do everything in their power to make it clear that freedom of expression is not negotiable".
You do not need to go very far in the new archive or on the Internet to see evidence that calls for laws against "blasphemy" grow so shocking. In June, the city Staphost in Holland has approved a law against swearing, citing the passage from Exodus 29: 7 of the Bible: "Thou shalt not take in vain the name of the Lord thy God". The New York Times reported June 27 that even Great Britain was currently examining a draft law against "incitement to religious hatred" that goes hand in hand with a law against inciting racial hatred . And here in France, they report that "public criticism of racial or religious groups is forbidden in the image of a secular nation, homogeneous and free from all sectarian divisions". But back to my country, the United States, a much more serious project has been put forward before the Legislature of the State of New York "makes the crime to ridicule belief and religious practice which constitutes a violation of class B; provides that a person is guilty of the crime when in a public place that person has the deity or the religious beliefs of any class of people in a light or hateful or ridiculous religious beliefs has a lustful way, sacrilegious, lascivious or obscene''.
Fortunately, this proposal has not reached the stage of the committee. But note well that this is an important thing. The terms of this legislation seem not so much directed against the gods or god (imaginary) who could be offended, but rather speak of "ridiculous" and "hatred" of religious believers. In other words, the crime is not against "God" - is to protect the sensibilities and feelings of believers. And that is why it is so dangerous and so attractive compared to contemporary efforts to protect and "not offend" religious groups and believers. Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of the Enlightenment when it becomes conditional on religious practices, religious groups or religious feelings. I can deal with the President of the United States of all kinds of names of birds. I can see flashes of humor and even stinging satires in the mass media is regarded as a detail of modern politics. But if you make fun of, let's say, pedophile priests or film bloody Mel Gibson's "Passion of Christ", you'll see groups like the misnamed Catholic League for Civil Rights howl of indignation. I can cite many other examples that cases of Salman Rushdie and Oriana Fallaci. Taslima Nasrim comes to mind as the case of Dr. Younis Shaikh, who spent some time in a Pakistani jail on charges of blasphemy. And in May this year, the group of journalists "Reporters without borders" cited the alarming climate of a number of countries where the writers were hauled before the courts for making remarks "blasphemous or profane. And in India, more than 640 people have been charged with blasphemy since 1988. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair seems determined to make a crime of this so-called "religious hatred". Our British comrades could probably enlighten us more about this upcoming threat posed to civil liberties the Government Commission for Equality and Human Rights ", a title that reporter Nick Cohen of the newspaper ' Observer rightly described as so "cuddly liberal". He warned his readers, however, in an opinion piece against the blasphemy law: "Only when they come in such detail as the commission will fight all those who have prejudices against gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age, religion and belief".
Now, understand me well. Discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, age and other factors is unacceptable, there is no doubt about that. But punishing those who have opinions atheists or anti-religious is to create the offense of "crimes of opinion". It is dangerous enough, but why should we suspend the freedom of expression just to protect the sensibilities of any group whatsoever, especially religious groups?
There is a difference between questioning ideas and tackle people. Telling a group of people they are "dirty, disgusting, bad" and terms like this is hate speech, although I do not think we should criminalize. And neither the atheist nor the theist should not indulge in personal attacks. What the theist is that it protects, is the criticism of his ideas. It is a protection that no person may be entitled. No ideas are sacrosanct. All ideas must be open to free and public examination and restoration in question, even of atheism. It is worth noting that the idea of protecting religious groups from criticism comes amid two ideas which are increasingly reflected in both the secular media as religious sects, even on the bench legislators.
The first idea is the notion that religion is "contested" and that believers are "oppressed" by the government or other civil institutions. In the United States, the religious right points to any court order prohibiting religious exercise is compulsory or religious events involving the state. For example, if believers can not make a public prayer at the announcement of a school sports competition, it is cited as proof that religious rights are violated. If a public school does not classroom teaching of creationism or other religious story of human origins, groups protest that it is both "unfair" and "discriminatory" towards their views. The second concept is the claim that there is a category of so-called "religious rights" that require special protection of the law. The American Atheists are fighting against this type of legislation "special rights" for years, and it is a battle with advances and setbacks. We have a number of laws at the state level, known as the laws ''protection of religious freedom" and "restoration of religious freedom" that require the administration to legally take exceptional precautions before "violate" the exercise and religious rights. This is not the protection of ordinary citizens, as our Bill of Rights. It does not protect private enterprise. It does not even protect the administration? It is exclusively for the legal protection of churches, mosques, temples and other religious groups. In striking down a version of the legislation, Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of the United States said that the law provided the religious issue a legal instrument, "that no atheist could do". Clearly, this is discrimination in favor of religion.
So we have a strident chorus of voices that insists that "religion is under attack", that religious institutions are in urgent need of special protections and privileges, and that political power should be used to preserve and extend the scope of religious exercise. Logic dictates the next step - the 'protection' groups and religious sentiments against any form of criticism, ridicule, any questioning. And why not, especially if one accepts the proposition that there are many "religious rights" special. Express a view against religion, even if the remarks were made in terms of selected or in the university setting, it becomes increasingly risky. I do not want to darken the picture. No, at least in the U.S., we're not about to introduce legislation on blasphemy which greatly extend the national or the state ... not yet - but if some people let go ...
And religious fundamentalism comes in our country, if not already. The changing geopolitical landscape, globalization, population movements and the simple movement of people eat not only the rise of militant Islam as friends for different points of view. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we live really what Samuel Huntington has rightly described as the "Clash of Civilizations". Religious groups have rushed into the political vacuum created by the collapse of oligarchic states and "nations collapsed. Despite the veneer of globalization and the spread of certain Western ideas, institutions and religious ideologies play a greater role in international politics than we could imagine two decades ago.
What then of all this?
Eddie Tabash Counsel, member of American Atheists and someone who has presented to Congress of the United States under a label openly atheist, recently wrote an essay on our website that asked the question: "To bash or not to bash "[" criticize or not criticize, that is the question "]. "There is no rational basis for providing special religious dogmas of their own exemption harsh criticism", he wrote. "Religion is so ingrained in our society that its supporters have managed to impose in popular culture the notion that religion always deserves special treatment. And he continues: "If we allow religion to censor the words and arguments we use in our struggle to educate society in favor of secularism, it is as if we let the fox guard the henhouse. Our society will never be receptive to a secular message so long as popular culture would take the criticism of religion as a forbidden zone ... ".
How are we doing?
Above all, let us be frank and straightforward about what we are. I am an atheist. I lead an atheist organization, and I am proud of the name of atheism. One of our achievements which I think is all the work we have done, especially during the past decade, to bring atheism in American political culture.
You know, one of the most important books I read was titled "Faith in Action" and this book was written by Ralph Reed, who has worked for years as director of the Christian Coalition of America Pat Robertson. And one of the things Reed kept saying to the environment, while it was being organized religious conservatives into a powerful political machine, was how the fundamentalists / evangelicals came out of the closet they had imposed on themselves and had begun to gain political power. Well we need to get out of our closets, and we must start thinking about the direct political participation, and we must do it openly and without fear. I can tell you that in America, atheists - and again I use that term that includes all the different "flavors" of non-believers - love to do things like arguing with Christians, hold discussions, communicate with each in discussion groups on the Internet, to score points against them on religious subjects sharp intellectual and historical and meet friends. However, what I propose is to make less of this and a little more political organization. We need to start thinking about winning elections and not just to win debates. Maybe everyone here is not an atheist, or it may be that you use other words to describe atheism. But no matter the manner with which you present, I think the lesson here is to be open and proud of what you are. Three years ago, the American Atheists have organized an unprecedented action, the March of Americans without a god, the GAMOW. Over 3 000 of us went to Washington DC for the day and we opened our forum for representatives of many organizations, including those not always agree with other non - believers. We put aside our petty quarrels, and we opened up the prospect of working together in the future based on mutual respect. One of the main results that emerged from the GAMOW was the need for atheists, freethinkers and secular humanists and other groups or individuals who are not believers - regardless of how you call - do not engage attacks against other non-believers. Burying the hatchet. Stick to political matters and not persons. Accept the fact that, yes, we have and we have differences ... approaches, different "styles" different, different organizational cultures. But we have much in common and we should consider working together wherever and whenever possible on an ad hoc basis and so we concentrate on issues and specific goals.
Another interesting thing that came out of the GAMOW was the Political Action Committee of Americans Without God, who encourages and supports the atheists to stand for elections and support candidates who are interested in our program either at Local School Council, to plan the state legislature, or Washington DC.
In conclusion, I would like to express how important it is to speak clearly on behalf of freedom of expression. Without freedom of speech, we have no chance whatsoever to send our message to the entire society. Without free expression, we have no opportunity to initiate iron cons religions undermine their message, their program, the claims of their beliefs. Without free expression, we can not offer alternatives: we can not defend and honor what is best in our respective societies. We must defend freedom of expression, no exceptions!
Let me end with a famous quote. She said: "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death for your right to say it".
Generally, this quotation attributed to Voltaire, but most scholars agree that it is an invention of CS Tallentyre, which has a volume of collected letters of French philosopher.
Freedom of speech must be defended by political action as well as academic discussion.
Anne Humphreys
Labels: Anne Humphreys, Atheism, Religion and fanaticism
# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 2:06 PM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]