It’s clear which side comes out looking like a bunch of whiners: a comment
Attempts to defend secularism often result in anger from religious apologists who are accustomed to getting special treatment. During this holiday season, we are seeing examples of this once again, in response to the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s challenge to Arizona’s Day of Prayer. Mark Shea (in New Atheists Need to Get Their Narrative Straight)[1] and Mary Kochan (in You Whiny Sniveling Little Atheists Are Pathetic)[2] have written articles in which they mention Christian martyrs in an attempt to make it seem as though secularists are weak and complaining about nothing.
In response to these articles, Adam Lee has written, in ’Tis the Season for Holy War Nostalgia, about “apologists who are openly nostalgic for an era when religious disagreements were settled not through peaceful persuasion, but through violence, torture, and bloodshed in the streets” and who “think it’s cowardly for atheists to file lawsuits enforcing the separation of church and state”.[3]
The following is a comment I wrote in response to Lee’s blog entry.
What really bothers me is the way the apologists who use arguments like this are using other people’s bravery to make themselves and their entire religion look good. It sounds like they’re trying to identify with Christian martyrs, insinuating that their situation is in some way similar. In reality, the people who make these kinds of arguments aren’t displaying the bravery of martyrs; they’re displaying immaturity.
This reminds me of Daniel Fincke’s “Top 10 Tips For Reaching Out To Atheists” at Camels with Hammers. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers/2011/02/22/top-10-tips-for-reaching-out-to-atheists/) For point #10 he responds to people who brag about how Christians tolerate mistreatment and how they’ll have to stand up for their rights one day. (A quote: “Do you know when a Christian instantly loses all credibility? It is when they say something like this, ‘Our enemies assume that just because we are Christians we are going to turn the other cheek, but at some point we have a right to stand up for our beliefs!’ Really, any obnoxious, pugilistic behavior in defense of your supposed Christianity convinces people you have none.”)
They want to compare atheists and secularists living in secular countries to Christian martyrs, because if you compared the Christian right in the US to the people who are in support of secularism, it’s clear which sides comes out looking like a bunch of whiners. The people who are in support of secularism are upset about legitimate discrimination, while many of the people on the Christian right are complaining about not getting special treatment.
About the whole fatwa envy thing: I’ve noticed that, too. They seem almost jealous of the violence that is used by certain Muslim groups to silence criticism. At the same time, though, they want to be able to brag about how much better, more peaceful, etc. Christianity is compared to Islam. I don’t know how many of the people who say things like this actually want violence. I suspect that some probably do, but I don’t know about most. There does seem to be a double standard, though, in that Muslims who say anything violent are considered suspicious or dangerous, whereas Christians who say something violent get the benefit of the doubt until they actually do something. I think the Christians who say things that insinuate violence (but don’t intend to act on it or don’t actually want it to happen) know that they live in a society that gives them leeway, or they would stop and think before saying it. As for those who actually do want violence, they’re obviously horrid.
References
[1] Shea, Mark. New Atheists Need to Get Their Narrative Straight. Posted on 13 December 2011 at Catholic and Enjoying It! Retrieved on 21 December 2011 from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2011/12/new-atheists-need-to-get-their-narrative-straight.html.
[2] Kochan, Mary. You Whiny Sniveling Little Atheists Are Pathetic. Posted on 13 December 2011 at Catholic Lane. Retrieved on 21 December 2011 from http://catholiclane.com/you-whiny-sniveling-little-atheists-are-pathetic/.
[3] Lee, Adam. ’Tis the Season for Holy War Hostalgia. Posted on 19 December 2011 at Daylight Atheism. Retrieved on 21 December 2011 from http://bigthink.com/ideas/41577.
Muslims are Part of the Community, Too
Crazy Muslims & Mosques Comments By Herman Cain[1] (TheYoungTurks on YouTube)[2]
I’ve written about my disagreements with Islam and my frustrations with fundamentalist Muslims, but I hope I have also expressed that I very much believe that Muslims should have equal rights. Soon after reading about gender-segregated Islamic prayers in some Canadian public schools,[3] I watched the above Young Turks video. There is serious problem of discrimination against Muslims, and the comments by Herman Cain are an example of this problem. (Over at the blog Atheist Revolution, vjack has declared Cain Idiot of the Week.[4] Vjack linked to an entry at The Religion Virius in which Craig A. James points out that if Cain wants to ban religious institutions based upon the fact that there are some members of a religion who favor theocracy, he would have to allow communities to ban churches as well.[5])
This is not the first time that Cain has advocated discrimination against Muslims. Here are some Young Turks videos from earlier this year about other comments he has made indicating that he would discriminate against Muslims if elected.
Anti-Muslim GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain[6] (TheYoungTurks on YouTube)
More Anti-Muslim Comments from Cain on Fox News[7] (TheYoungTurks on Youtube)
The irony of Cain’s comments is that he’s a person who says he cares about the United States Constitution, but is conveniently ignoring the First Amendment. As is my reaction to most politicians, I can’t be certain if he’s doing this to appeal to a certain base, or because he really doesn’t believe in freedom of religion, or both; my guess is that it’s for both reasons.
It is a simple, yet so often-ignored, fact that Muslims are a part of the community, too. Muslims living in the United States of America are not visiting someone else’s house; this is their home, too, and they can build a mosque if they want to, even if others in the community disagree with it (and, incidentally, even if it is close to the site where other Muslims committed a horrible crime).[8] They have every right to speak about their faith and even to try to convince others that their beliefs are correct, as does everyone. A person should not be suspected, by default, of being a horrible person or of favoring discrimination or violence just because others in their religion favor such things.
In short, it’s time for everyone (including the politicians who pretend to represent “The American People”) to realize that this country does not belong solely to conservative Christians; freedom of religion applies to everyone, and no one should be relegated to second-class status.
#
Acknowledgement
Much thanks to The Young Turks.[9] They are an online news show (the largest in the world). They broadcast five days a week, Monday through Friday, and put some of their clips up on YouTube. They also have several other YouTube channels dedicated to various topics.
References
[1] The Young Turks. Crazy Muslims & Mosques Comments by Herman Cain. Uploaded on 18 July 2011 on YouTube by The Young Turks. Retrieved on 23 July 2011 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZBpnCd-q4k.
[2] The Young Turks’ YouTube channel can be found at http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks.
[3] Sharmin, Ani. On Segregated Prayers in Public Schools. Posted on 24 July 2011 at The Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/on-segregated-prayers-in-public-schools/.
[4] vjack. Idiot of the Week: Herman Cain. Posted on 23 July 2011 at Atheist Revolution. Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/07/idiot-of-week-herman-cain.html.
[5] James, Craig A. Candidate Cain: Constitution Allows Anti-Muslim Discrimination! Posted on 20 July 2011 at The Religion Virus. Retrieved on 26 July 2011 from http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2011/07/candidate-cain-constitution-allows-anti.html.
[6] The Young Turks. Anti-Muslim GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain. Posted on 23 March 2011 on YouTube. Retrieved on 26 July 2011 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1AfPgNTVT8.
[7] The Young Turks. More Anti-Muslim Comments from Cain on Fox News. Posted on 1 April 2011 on YouTube. Retrieved on 26 July 2011 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxJa1xL235c.
[8] Sharmin, Ani. Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism: Some Thoughts on Park51 and Islam. Posted on 9 September 2010 at The Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/arithmetic-and-criticism-part-1/.
[9] The official website of The Young Turks can be found at http://www.theyoungturks.com/.
On Segregated Prayers in Public Schools
Introduction
I recently read some articles and blog entries about gender-segregated Islamic prayers in some Canadian public schools, specifically in Ontario. In Charter trumps Education Act over prayers, Terry Davidson and the people he quotes mention two issues (secular education and gender equality) which I think are important to discuss here.[1]
Secular Education
An essential characteristic of public schools is that they should be secular, should be schools that neither endorse a particular view on religion nor discriminate against students with a particular view on religion. These prayers are being described by some as an example of religious freedom (i.e. students being allowed to practice their religious beliefs), but there are some aspects of the situation which make me question this assessment.
If the students were to start a Muslim Club at the school, I think that would definitely be within their rights. (My former high school had a Christian Club, and I’ve heard that there is now also a Muslim Club.) If students said that they wanted to pray and wanted to be able to come late to a certain class on Fridays, I think that would be within their rights as well. If they wanted to go home early on Fridays to go the mosque, that would be within their rights as well. (I remember that when I was in elementary school some of my fellow students from Catholic families would leave school early on certain days to go to CCD — Confraternity of Christian Doctrine — classes.) These last two suggestions, of course, would require the students to make up any work they missed. There are some people suggesting that the prayers in public schools are justified because leaving school early would mean that students would miss class and/or because some students didn’t return to school when they were allowed to leave school for Friday prayers. The reason I don’t agree with this argument is because students miss class for all kinds of activities, including competitions, events, extra classes, and so on. If students can miss class for these reasons and still be expected to make up the work, I don’t see why the same cannot be done for a religious activity. Students not returning to school should be considered irresponsible and should be expected to make up the work; the school should not give up on secularism but expect responsibility and hard work. Ultimately, it is not the job of the school to help parents preach religion to their children, but to give them an education in secular subjects.
So, if I would support students’ right to have a Muslim Club, or to leave school to pray, or to obtain permission to come late to class in order to pray, why do I object to this on the grounds of secularism? The presence of an imam is, for me, what makes this situation cross a line. This is not just an example of students wanting to pray and asking to be excused from class for a little while to do so. This can be considered, in my view, religious instruction. This is an example of giving a religious leader a time and place to preach to students in a public school, during the school day.
A point that is often ignored, but is important to note, is that including religion in school is not just a wrong done against members of other faiths, but also a wrong done against members of the same faith, who find that another person’s denomination or interpretation is being favored over their own. In Davidson’s article (mentioned above) there are quotes from Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress.
“The TDSB [Toronto District School Board], by allowing the propagation of religion, is going against the education act,” Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said on Friday. “(The act) says no religion can be propagated in the public school system.”
And the separating of boys and girls during the prayer sessions?
The TDSB has taken one of the more radical and patriarchal forms of Islam, run with it, and hasn’t bothered to question it, Fatah said.
“How did the TDSB pick the worst form of gender separation and say this is Islam?” Fatah asked. “The TDSB is guilty of importing a version of Islam that is from…Islamic fascists.”[2]
By allowing these prayers, the school district is favoring one form of Islam. It is favoring a form of Islam that makes girls sit in the back during prayer. It’s taking the views of some Muslims and giving a religious leader official time during the school day to teach that version of Islam to the children of Muslim parents.
It is also important, extremely important, to consider the views of the students. I’m not one to automatically dismiss the views of a person just because that person is under the age of eighteen; I don’t like it when adults assume that children are ignorant. So, just because these students are under eighteen does not mean that I think they have no views on religion and it certainly does not mean that their views on religion are irrelevant. At the same time, it is dishonest to pretend that a person who is still a minor under the legal guardianship of others is not going to be influenced, or even forced, by adults to pretend to believe what the minor does not really believe. So, while I am willing to concede (and readily so) that there are probably students in the school who really do agree with their parents’ religious faith, there are probably also those who disagree, but do not feel that they can give voice to their objections. These prayer sessions — again, headed by an imam — are a way for parents to use school time to force their kids to follow a certain religion and a way for a religious leader to have the chance to monitor which of the Muslim students come to the prayer and which ones don’t. When we talk about religious freedom for students, let us remember that this religious freedom extends not just to students who agree with their parents’ religious views but also to students who disagree with them.
Aside: It’s Possible for Two People Who Disagree to Both Be Wrong
As a brief preemptive response to likely criticism, I want to add here that I know there are those who suspect ulterior motives on the part of those who oppose the prayers, and there are those who do try to mask their discriminatory views with fake concern for equality. There is an accusation by Ellie Kirzner against the groups Canadian Hindu Advocacy and Jewish Defense League. She writes that their opposition to these prayers is motivated by discriminatory views against Muslims.[3] Based on the quotes in the article, I’m inclined to agree that Ron Banerjee, the person quoted, is advocating bigotry. However, that does not mean that the prayers are right. Both the people who want discriminate against Muslims and the particular Muslims who want to discriminate are wrong.
Gender Equality
Gender segregation is a toxic concept that contaminates the ideas of freedom and equality that are essential to building a better world. The aspect of these prayers that has rightfully gained a lot of attention is the fact that girls have to pray in the back and girls who are menstruating sit separately, not praying. This is bigotry, and it should not be allowed in public schools. It is infuriating that religion is considered an acceptable reason to disregard equality; certain religious people have actually convinced others that letting their religion discriminate in a public school is somehow an example of equality.
Heather Mallick wrote an article about how embarrassing it must be for the girls to be singled out when they are menstruating and comments that gender equality would require letting girls pray alongside the boys, not behind them.[4] She makes a good point, and it bothers me that people who advocate taking the views and feelings of a religious group into consideration don’t stop to consider the views and feelings of girls who are being told that they are second-class, and who feel pressured to follow discriminatory rules that they do not believe in.
One argument that seems to come up whenever there is an issue about unequal treatment of women is the argument that it’s alright for women to be treated unequally, because that unequal treatment protects them. One insulting argument of this type was made by Steve Smith (in the comments section one of Professor Coyne’s blog posts at Why Evolution is True). He writes that he retracted his criticism on the gender segregation in Islamic prayer because a Muslim woman told him that a practical reason for women praying behind men is that, otherwise, men would be distracted by the view of women from behind.[5] This kind of attitude is one that places the responsibilities for men’s actions on women; it suggests that women self-segregating is a way to protect themselves from mistreatment from men, instead of demanding that men should be considered responsible for their own actions and that women shouldn’t be mistreated. I’ve heard women make this argument about other gender equality issues, and while I understand the desire to take a practical protective step within a discriminatory system, ultimately it is the system itself that is wrong.
Michael Ruse, who is often criticized by fellow atheists for arguing for the compatibility of science and religion, nonetheless does realize that “there is such a dark side to religion”. He writes, “Let me spell it out. Girls with their periods are not sinful. They are not sick. They are not weak. That anyone would think otherwise in this day and age boggles the mind. It boggles the mind even more that respectable members of the Toronto District School Board should think this treatment of females is something that should be tolerated on school grounds, at any time.” He adds, for good measure, that “decent people, responsible for the welfare of children, don’t allow prejudice against girls with their periods. They don’t, they really don’t”.[6] I agree. They don’t, they really don’t. Anyone who believes that excluding girls who are menstruating (or segregating girls in general) is a good practice has lost all sense of decency, if they had it in the first place.
Eric MacDonald has written an adamant rant, insisting (in short) that enough is enough already. In response to Tarek Fatah’s comments (quoted above) he writes, “And this is simply why religion does not belong in public space, because there is no way of establishing what is and what is not an aspect or teaching or practice of any particular religion”. About gender segregation and discrimination, he writes, “The time is coming when we are going to have to take the bull by the horns and tell religions that they simply must live up to the understanding of equality that is written into the laws of the land”.[7] His frustration is understandable, given the frequency with which religious freedom is cited to promote bigotry. Equality matters and gender equality should not be ignored or violated in the name of religion, especially not in public schools.
Fatima Cader writes that the Friday prayers made her a Muslim feminist and were actually a step in the right direction. Because congregational prayers on Fridays are considered mandatory for boys and optional for girls, the boys would get permission to leave school to go to the prayers, but the girls would not. Both parents and teachers were not interested in letting girls go to the prayers, but there were girls who wanted to pray and would have to do so secretly in the school. Then, the school decided to allow students to pray on site during Ramadan, which meant that both boys and girls could participate.
To me, it seems that the school was wrong in the first place by not allowing girls to go to the Friday prayers, and the religion is wrong for having different rules for prayer for boys and girls. If the religion is wrong for having different rules for boys and girls, the remedy is not to bring the religion and its segregation into the school, but to challenge and change the rules of the religion. Discriminatory rules in Islam should not cause the school to discriminate accordingly; the school should have made it its policy to allow girls who asked to attend Friday prayers as well.
While the prayers may be considered a step forward in Islam by some, others could point out that it is still far from equal — and compared to the fact that girls are allowed (I presume) to sit in the front row during classes, it’s a step backward for the school. At the end of her article, Cader makes my point for me. She writes, “I wonder now how I and the school might have grown had we all along had the chance to share openly in a process, without fear or paranoia, whereby students could decide for themselves how their prayers should be arranged. God knows, teenagers hate being told what to do. Trust that Muslim women hate it no less.”[8] I’d ask her to consider that while she might think these prayers an improvement, and may want to change the system from within, another female Muslim student might prefer to have permission from the school to pray by herself or with other friends who do not support segregation, so that she doesn’t have to sit in the back. Having these prayers available as the Islamic prayer option for students, instead of a policy where students can “decide for themselves how their prayers should be arranged” is the problem, and it’s why these prayers are not an example of equality for Muslims or for women.
#
Acknowledgement
I first read about this article in an entry at Ophelia Benson’s Notes and Comments Blog at Butterflies and Wheels.[9]
#
Edits
1. One fantastic article that I inadvertently did not include in the original entry is Robyn Urback’s Girls should not be segregated on public school property. (URL: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/07/11/girls-should-not-be-segregated-on-public-school-property/)
2. There is now a petition asking for the prayers to be desegregated. (URL: http://www.change.org/petitions/dont-segregate-menstruating-girls-in-public-schools) To give credit, I found the petition via Pharyngula. (URL: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/we_need_a_petition_to_urge_a_s.php)
3. I originally forgot to include a link to the article mentioned in the short aside. It has now been added.
References
[1] Davidson, Terry. Charter trumps Education Act over prayers. Posted on 8 July 2011 in Toronto Sun. Retrieved on 23 July 2011 from http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/08/charter-trumps-education-act-over-prayers.
[2] Same as #1
[3] Kirzner, Ellie. Ellie Kirzner on Muslim school prayer. Posted in the week of 14-21 July 2011 in Vol 30 No 26 of Now Toronto. Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=181795.
[4] Mallick, Heather. Time for someone to speak up for shy young girls. Posted on 10 July 2011 at The Toronto Star. Retrieved 23 July 2011 from http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1022295–mallick-time-for-someone-to-speak-up-for-shy-young-girls.
[5] Smith, Steve. Comment #10. Posted on 16 July 2011 at 7:33 am in the comment section of Jerry Coyne’s Muslim prayer, misogyny, and Ruse’s ambitendencies. Retrieved on 23 July 2011 from http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/muslim-prayer-and-ruses-ambitendencies/#comment-119485.
[6] Ruse, Michael. Prayer, Menstruation, and the Toronto District School Board. Posted on 15 July 2011 at The Brainstorm Blog of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/menstruating-girls-and-the-toronto-district-school-board/37370.
[7] MacDonald, Eric. On the Side of the Angels. Posted on 16 July 2011 at Choice in Dying. Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://choiceindying.com/2011/07/16/on-the-side-of-the-angels/.
[8] Cader, Fathima. My school prayer: How my Friday ritual made me a Muslim feminist. Posted in the week of 14-21 July 2011 in Vol 30 No 26 of Now Toronto. Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=181789.
[9] Benson, Ophelia. Filthy Girls. Posted on 14 July 2011 at The Notes and Comments Blog at Butterflies and Wheels. Retrieved on 24 July 2011 from http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/filthy-girls/.
On Everybody Draw Mohammad Day, Year 2
Ellysa's Everybody Draw Mohammad Day contribution asks an important question. (via Friendly Atheist)
G.'s Everybody Draw Mohammad Day contribution shows that the society in which we live can shape our views and that our society has learned from the mistakes of the past. (via Friendly Atheist)
A Further Defense of Everybody Draw Mohammad Day (With Pictures)
One year has passed since the first Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. One again, Hemant Mehta has compiled drawings of Mohammad sent to him.[1] Here are two of the drawings that I liked from the compilation.
I already explained last year why I support Everybody Draw Mohammad Day.[2] It is important to reiterate that this event was not planned by a hate group seeking to take away rights from minority religious groups or immigrants; it was a condemnation of violence that was used to intimidate others who have drawn Mohammad. Although different pictures contain different material (and we may each find certain pictures offensive or inoffensive) the idea behind the event was not hatred, but opposing hatred.
It is important to stand up for equal rights for everyone, and one of the aspects of Everybody Draw Mohammad Day that I like is that, unlike the actions those who tried to stop the construction of the Park51 Islamic Community Center in Manhattan,[3] this event is focused on criticism of Islam (specifically of Islamic violence) while not taking away rights from Muslims. We should be more horrified by the violence and suppression of rights committed by theocratic Muslim governments and Islamic fundamentalist organizations than by cartoons of Mohammad.
A Response to Criticism from Allies
Even some who are involved in opposing discrimination and advocating working together with others of different faiths (two goals which I wholeheartedly support) have, in my opinion, misunderstood this event and taken it as an example of discrimination against Muslims. Even those who realize that they can get along with people of other religions while disagreeing with them, and not following the same rules as members of those other religions, think that not following the Islamic rule against drawing religious figures is discrimination against Muslims. As Jen McCreight noted in her entry about interfaith work, ”It’s totally fine for religious people in the interfaith movement to disagree about things – that’s the whole concept of interfaith work. But an atheist disagrees with them? Then they’re just being an asshole and need to shut up. We saw this sort of reaction with Everybody Draw Mohammed Day – when the atheists stood by their values, they were the ones in the wrong. They were the ones who needed to shut up lest they offend the others in the group.”[4]
If Christians who believe that Jesus is the son of God and Muslims who believe that he was a prophet (but not the son) of God can get along, if religious people who believe drinking alcohol is a sin and people who drink alcohol can get along, if people who believe in one god and people who believe in many gods can get along, if people who hold completely different views of the divine and follow entirely different religious rules can get along without their practice of their own beliefs (in such a way that is not harming others) being considered discrimination against others, then people who draw Mohammad and Muslims should be able to get along without drawing Mohammad being considered discrimination against Muslims.
It’s time for humanity to realize that disagreement with and criticism of religion is included under freedom of speech and religion, and that these freedoms apply to nonreligious people just as much as they do to religious people.
Christian Jealousy of Islamic Intimidation
Conservative Christians (such as Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, who does not understand why anyone would actually blame the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy for its actions)[5] have demonstrated that they are almost jealous of the fear that Islamic violence inspires; they seem to wish that people were reluctant to criticize, satirize, or mock Christianity in the same way that many are too afraid to criticize, satirize, or mock Islam. Although these Christians will claim that they just want people to consider the feelings of Christians, just as they consider the feelings of Muslims, I highly doubt that they will disagree when their own pastors make comments against Islam. The reality is that conservative Christians want to stop criticism of their own religion while advocating discrimination against (not just disagreement with) people of other faiths, and even members of their own faith. This is one of the reasons why I think that conservative or fundamentalist members of any faith are not able to correctly criticize other religions—because their own members secretly want the same kind of power to control other people’s lives. Again, one of the reasons why I support Everybody Draw Mohammad Day is because it was not motivated by this kind of desire for discrimination masked by a fake concern, but rather out of genuine concern for those whose lives have been lost due to religious violence.
Conclusion
There are those who would say that there are better ways to discuss the problems within Islam than drawing cartoons on a particular day of the year, and I agree. This event really isn’t about the cartoons themselves, but what they represent—a desire for a society in which people do not fear for their lives after expressing their views peacefully or not following baseless religious rules. Right now, even criticisms of Islam that do not contain pictures of Mohammad are being dismissed as hateful. Even criticisms of Islam from people who are or were Muslims and who experienced the effects of fundamentalist Islamic teachings in their own lives are dismissed. Even criticisms of Islam that demonstrate a concern for the Muslims who are being hurt are dismissed. I don’t have to like or agree with every single drawing of Mohammad to appreciate that these drawing help to stand up for a world in which these criticisms can be heard without their authors being threatened with violence.
#
Edit
Here is a Young Turks video clip from last year (May 2010). Hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss the Everybody Draw Mohammad Day event.
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMz0aIM2_sM
References
[1] Mehta, Hemant. Draw Muhammad Day 2: A Compilation. Posted on May 20, 2011 at Friendly Atheist. Retrieved on May 20, 2011 from http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/05/20/draw-muhammad-day-2-a-compilation/.
[2] Sharmin, Ani. On Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. Posted on May 20, 2010 at the Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on May 20, 2011 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/on-everybody-draw-mohammad-day/.
[3] Sharmin, Ani. Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism: Some Thoughts on Park 51 and Islam [Part 1 of 3]. Posted on September 9, 2010 at The Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on May 20, 2011 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/arithmetic-and-criticism-part-1/.
[4] McCreight. What do you call interfaith volunteering where atheists participate? Posted on April 19, 2011 at BlagHag. Retrieved on May 20, 2011 from http://www.blaghag.com/2011/04/what-do-you-call-interfaith.html.
[5] Sharmin, Ani. Unsurprisingly Infuriating Comments and Their Antidotes: Secularism, Not the Pope, Deserves Support. Posted on September 29, 2010 at The Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on May 20, 2011 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/unsurprisingly-infuriating-comments-and-their-antidotes/.
Unsurprisingly Infuriating Comments and Their Antidotes: Secularism, Not the Pope, Deserves Support
Introduction
The Pope’s recent visit to the UK resulted in both protests against and defenses of him and his visit. Given the actions of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church — its insistence that members must follow some very questionable doctrines and, added to that, the scandal in which many church officials were found to be sexually abusing children and others found to be protecting the abusers from justice — this response was not surprising. Catholicism is simultaneously both an important belief for many around the world, giving them comfort and hope, and a source of great harm to many around the world.
Some Unsurprisingly Infuriating Comments
In what can be described as an extremely unsurprising event, Pope Benedict XVI gave a speech at Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and said something hateful and offensive. Despite mentions of peace, human rights, honesty, respect, and fair-mindedness, it is clear from the speech as a whole (and please do read the entire thing, as it has the amazing quality of being both incorrect and impressively frustrating) and his decisions and actions that his ideas about what is right, honest, and fair are divorced from reality. He mentions good values briefly but then demonstrates bad values through his words and actions. In his speech he emphasized Britain’s Christian history (which is true enough, although this has had mixed results, with much that is unjust due to favoritism towards Christianity and religion in general) and then went on to criticize “atheist extremism”, claiming that “the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society”. He also said,
“Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms; and may that patrimony, which has always served the nation well, constantly inform the example your Government and people set before the two billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world.”[1]
For this, he has been criticized (in addition to the criticism he was already facing for coming to Britain for a state visit and for many of the other policies and actions of the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church).
In addition to this, Cardinal Walter Kasper has been criticized for his comment, “When you land at Heathrow you at times think you are in a Third World country”. He’s apparently upset (among other things) about an argument about whether British Airways staff members should wear Crucifixes. He has also said that does not believe that it is likely that women will be priests in the Church, at least not in the next couple of hundred years. Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, pointed out — correctly, I think — that Cardinal Kasper is just upset that people aren’t obeying the Vatican.[2] I would additionally point out that complaining about Crucifixes while supporting wide-spread discrimination against women is a demonstration of messed up priorities.
If this wasn’t enough, Bill Donohue (who can always be counted on to demonstrate how horrible one can become if one strives to always defend a certain individual or organization, regardless of individual’s bad actions or the organization’s ridiculous policies) has demanded that if the Pope is expected to apologize for the actions of Catholics, then the British Humanist Association should apologize for the actions of atheists.[3] My guess is that he is upset about Andrew Copson’s response to the Pope’s speech, although Dobson already didn’t have a very high opinion of secularism or atheism prior to this event. It has apparently escaped Donahue that, while the Catholic Church has a hierarchy and rules that one must follow to be a Catholic, there isn’t a hierarchy or rulebook one must follow to be an atheist. While being a Roman Catholic means, by definition, that one is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, being an atheist or humanist does not mean one has to be a member of the British Humanist Association (or any other association). A person cannot take an action and accurately claim that it is an official teaching or dogma of atheism, but a person can take an action and accurately claim that it is a teaching of the Church. It has also apparently escaped him that the things which the Pope has been asked to apologize for are specific immoral actions that were either endorsed by Church teachings or immoral actions that were hidden by the hierarchy. One would not ask the Pope to apologize for Catholic bank robbers, because people aren’t taught to be bank robbers by the Church and because great numbers of bank tellers are not coming forward claiming that priests robbed their banks while Church officials hid the crime. However, one might ask the Pope to apologize when, for instance, the teachings of the Church cause harm to women’s health or when the Church hierarchy participates in hiding abuse against children. Personally, I think an actual improvement in Church beliefs and rules would be better than just an apology. An apology by the Pope followed by more hate seems to be the easy way out.
Hearing and reading offensives statements made by various religious leaders (including the Pope) and their defenders (such as Bill Donahue) is such a common occurrence that the main aspect making it newsworthy is the fact that people still believe these horrible ideas and respect the religious leaders who make them.
The Antidote: The Response
So what is the antidote to this? What should the response to the Pope be? We should most definitely not respond with violence or hatred, but rather show through our words and actions that secular values and actual human rights (not the distorted version which the Roman Catholic Church promotes) are superior to religious values. We should criticize the Church for its horrible actions and emphasize real human rights.
The British Humanist Association’s Chief Executive Andrew Copson said the following:
The notion that it was the atheism of Nazis (who were mostly not atheists in any case) that led to their extremist and hateful views or that somehow fuels intolerance in Britain today is a terrible libel against those who do not believe in god. The notion that it is non-religious people in the UK today who want to force their views on others, coming from a man whose organisation exerts itself internationally to impose its narrow and exclusive form of morality and undermine the human rights of women, children, gay people and many others, is surreal.[4]
These are the words to which Bill Donahue was presumably responding, and the really damning thing about them (for the Church) is that they are true. It is important to point out that it is highly hypocritical and ridiculous of religious leaders who routinely champion discrimination and human rights violations to claim that people who believe in secularism and equal rights are targeting religious groups for discrimination.
Making his point clear right from the beginning, Richard Dawkins delivered a speech titled Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity in which he mentions the many ways in which the Pope and the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church are harming people. The list is long and shows that the Church’s horrible actions are numerous and serious — not just a matter of occasional mistakes. (Dawkins also makes a good point that if the Church is going to count every person who is technically a member of the Church, regardless of the person’s agreement or disagreement with the Church’s policies, when bragging about how many Catholics there are around the world and in the UK, then they have to also admit that horrible people like Hitler were also Catholic.)[5] Ratzinger’s membership in the Hitler Youth was horrible, although I have to admit that it is an unreliable indicator of his personal views, since it was required; many people who didn’t support the Nazi Party had to pretend they did in order to keep themselves alive. His actions as an adult, however, cannot be given the benefit of the doubt. Ratzinger is and has been in positions of power for a long time. Concerning his actions while a member of the leadership of the Church, he cannot say that he was child who was required to take certain actions by law; he is in fact a person in a position of power who is now telling other people what to do. His willingness to continue the horrible policies of the Church, teach lies, and spread hate is worthy of condemnation, and there is no excuse.
The effect that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have on its members is evident from some of the testimonies that former Catholics make about their time as members of the Church. Miranda Celeste Hale wrote a blog entry titled A dirty little girl, her head hanging in shame that should make a person doubt the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is moderate or loving or kind. She describes her experience with confession and the feeling of guilt that Catholicism taught her to have.
Although I left Catholicism fifteen years ago, on occasion I still catch myself wondering what I need to do in order to rid myself of the guilt, shame, and feeling of dirtiness that, in one form or another, is almost always my companion. I sometimes find myself feeling frustrated: why, I wonder, can’t someone just tell me what penance to do? I obviously no longer think in terms of sin or feel the need to go to the confessional, but the desire for absolution remains, like an itch that cannot be scratched.
Who can deny that this is a form of child abuse? The mere act of writing this is making my hands shake and my stomach churn with anxiety. Fifteen years ago, I made the choice to leave Catholicism, something that, among the family and community I grew up in, just isn’t done. This choice was, without a doubt, the best and most liberating choice that I have ever made. However, I do not have a choice when it comes to the ever-present guilt, shame, and anxiety that resulted from my childhood religious indoctrination, and which, to varying degrees of intensity, will always be with me.
The Catholic Church loathes children. Loathes them. To the Church, children are Catholics first and humans second, and the lifelong trauma caused by childhood indoctrination is mere collateral damage in the Church’s battle against the outside world. As is so often the case, the Church unashamedly places their own interests above all other concerns, including the welfare (physical, emotional, and mental) of children. And an organization that despises and preys upon its weakest and most vulnerable members (who haven’t even chosen to be members) is undoubtably a force of great evil in the world.[6]
Whenever the Pope or a leader of the Church claims that the Church cares about families and children, remember those who have been hurt by the Church. Whenever a person tries to claim that the children who were hurt were only a few, were the exceptions to the rule, remember that it is also the teachings and practices of the Church itself (not just the solitary actions of individuals) which are harmful.
Maryam Namazie also spoke at the protest. In her speech she replied to the Pope’s assertion that we need the “corrective supplied by religion”, pointing out that religion’s attempt at correction leads to the kinds of atrocities which are committed today in countries run by Islam.[7] Attempts to enforce religious morality have resulted in horrors throughout human history, because what religions consider morality so often turns out to be bigotry. When making decisions based upon religious dogma, a person can use the opinions of an imaginary deity to make up rules instead of actually taking people into consideration.
Susan Jacoby wrote about Pope Benedict XVI’s selective memory and martyrdom, pointing out that the Pope selectively cited only times when Catholics were martyred and left out times when Catholics targeted others for violence. She points out that while there are great causes worth fighting for, the supernatural details and weird rules of religions are not among them. She also points out that it is ridiculous for the Pope to complain about being made fun of.
Benedict’s basic message throughout his visit to the United Kingdom was that England has become a largely secular society and that the mission of his church is to challenge “aggressive forms of secularism.” It was in this context that he cited the names of Catholic martyrs. He might reflect that since secularists have been more or less in charge, no one has been drawn and quartered for professing a particular religious belief. But oh, how painful it is to be mocked![8]
One would think that that Pope would realize that the reason he is able to visit the UK and make his harsh remarks is because of the ideas of secularism, freedom, and equality; people of other groups cannot coerce the government into censoring him.
There is a video of some of the speeches made at the Protest the Pope Rally. There are some impassioned words by various speakers, but especially moving and sad are the words of a lady speaking on behalf of abuse victims, expressing how they thought they were alone and are grateful that there are people who are willing to stand with them.[9] Who can look at those who have been abused and tell them that the Church is a good institution? Who can honestly say that the Church should still be respected?
There are, of course, many Roman Catholics who disagree with the teachings on the Church and especially with its actions in response to the crimes committed by its clergy. Back in May 2010, Greta Christina wrote Why Are You Still Catholic?, asking why people who disagree with the Church on so many issues (e.g. birth control, equal rights for LGBT people, gender equality) continue to support it. She also points out that even if a person agrees with the Church’s policies on other issues, it is certainly wrong to continue supporting an organization that protects child abusers and child rapists from justice. To continue supporting such an organization because of the comfort of religion, she argues, is to place one’s own comfort above the safety and welfare of children.[10] This is an argument I wish more people would make. While the veracity of certain supernatural religious claims is a separate argument, the issue here is a person’s association with an organization which is hurting people. There comes a point when one must say that, whatever benefits one has received from being a member of an organization, those benefits are not worth it if they come at the price of hurting others.
Also worth reading is Joan Smith’s In defence of modern Britain, an article in which she defends “modern, tolerant, secular Britain” against the religious bigots who criticize it for being a “culture of death”. She point out that it is a much better place to live, with more equality, than countries ruled by religions.[11] (She was responding to Mr. Adamus, director of pastoral affairs at the diocese of Westminster, but her words are applicable in this instance as well.) Despite all the claims made by religious leaders who want us to believe that religion must have much influence and power for a society to have morals, we actually find the opposite to be true. It is when people have freedom — when one religion is not in charge and cannot force its views on others — that a society can become a better place to live.
Adam Lee sums this all up concisely.
I’ve got a brief question for Julian Baggini, William Oddie, and everyone else – atheist or theist – who’s bemoaned the lively protests of Pope Benedict’s visit to the U.K.:
Do you believe the pope is not guilty of helping to protect child abusers (and if so, how do you respond to this evidence) – or do you simply believe that, because he’s the pope, he should be immune from any consequences for his actions?[12]
Conclusion
We should remember that the goal is to have equal rights and justice — to live in a society in which each person has worth and in which people of one religion are not given preference over others. In order to achieve this, it is important to speak up when a person or organization is taking actions which harm people, taking away equal rights, and preventing justice. The response should not be censorship or violence; the response should be peaceful protest. The response to words of unreasonableness and hate should be words of freedom and equality. We can show that a free and secular society allows people with different beliefs to give voice to their views and make it clear that this is preferable to a theocracy which censors “blasphemy” and “heresy” while taking away rights and promoting injustices.
There are those who may argue that the criticism of the Church is really anti-Catholic bias and discrimination. As I’ve written previously about Islam, there is a difference between discrimination and criticism.[13] Reasonable criticism is required,[14] and there has been plenty of it. We should not dispute the rights of Catholics to practice their faith, but we should definitely be against any government support for a particular religion and also be willing to criticize the Church when its officials endorse actions which are harmful.
Those who profess to be shocked or upset by the opposition to the Pope ought to cease ignoring the world around them. Why are we asked continually to consider the feelings of devout Catholics by people who ignore or minimize the experiences of those who have suffered serious harm due to the Church’s teachings and policies? Is the anger and frustration with the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church really unexpected when so much of what the Church does harms people around the world, either by actually endangering their lives or making their lives more difficult? Is it really expected that those who are harmed will continue to have a positive opinion of those who are harming them? Our opinions of the Pope should not be completely divorced from the harsh reality of his actions.
Ideally, I hope that more people realize that it is a dangerous idea to place one’s faith in a particular dogma based on false information and to defend the actions of an organization regardless of the harm it does. We should choose to support people based upon their actions; we should not just pick one person and defend that person dogmatically due to their job title. If we choose to support people who are doing what’s right in the world and protest against those who are doing what’s wrong, we can move forward and create a better life for people everywhere. Only then will we be able to say that we hold up a fair moral standard and actually make a better world.
#
Acknowledgements
I offer my thanks to the people I’ve quoted and referenced, especially those who have been speaking out in favor of secularism.
#
Edit (as of 18 February 2012)
This entry has been edited. I had referred to Britain as being “technically a Christian Nation” in the first paragraph of the second section, before mentioning the mixed results Britain’s Christian history has had, not realizing that while England has an established church, Scotland and Wales do not. The Church of England is the established church of England, and the Church of Scotland is the national church of Scotland. I should have looked it up before writing. Needless to say, my position on the importance of secularism remains the same.
References
[1] Ratzinger, Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI). Transcript of Speech at Holyroodhouse on September 16, 2010. Retrieved on September 19, 2010 from http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/09/16/papal-visit-2010-popes-holyroodhouse-speech-full-text/.
[2] [Views of Cardinal Walter Kasper and Terry Sanderson, as quoted and explained by Owen and Gledhill] Owen, Richard and Gledhill, Ruth. Pope flies into storm in UK after Vatican adviser complains of Britain’s atheism. Posted on September 16, 2010 in The Austrailian. Retrieved on September 19, 2010 from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pope-flies-into-storm-in-uk-after-vatican-adviser-complains-of-britains-atheism/story-e6frg6so-1225924703409.
[3] Donahue, William. Atheists Must Apologize For Hitler. Posted on September 16, 2010 at The Catholic League website. Retrieved on September 28, 2010 from http://catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1978.
[4] Copson, Andrew. Comment made in response to Pope Benedict XVI’s speech at Holyroodhouse on September 16, 2010. Retrieved on September 19, 2010 from http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/647.
[5] Dawkins, Richard. Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity. Longer version of speech delivered at the Protest the Pope rally on September 18, 2010. Posted on September 19, 2010 at Richard Dawkins site. Retrieved on September 21, 2010 from http://richarddawkins.net/articles/521113-ratzinger-is-an-enemy-of-humanity.
[6] Hale, Miranda Celeste. A dirty little girl, her head hanging in shame. Posted on September 19, 2010 at ex-catholic girl on Tumblr. Retrieved on September 19, 2010 from http://excatholicgirl.tumblr.com/post/1150523758.
[7] Namazie, Maryam. We don’t need the ‘corrective supplied by religion’. Speech delivered at the Protest the Pope rally on September 18, 2010. Posted on September 19, 2010 at Iran Solidarity. Retrieved on September 22, 2010 from http://iransolidarity.blogspot.com/2010/09/we-dont-need-corrective-supplied-by.html.
[8] Jacoby, Susan. Martyrdom, selective memory and Pope Benedict in England. Posted on September 22, 2010 at The Spirited Atheist column of The Washington Post. Retrieved on September 28, 2010 from http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/09/martyrdom_selective_memory_and_the_pope_in_england.html.
[9] [Various speakers] Protest the Pope Speeches — London Rally. Posted on September 19, 2010 by TheNewsauce. Retrieved on September 28, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPhKKutehyk&feature=related.
[10] Christina, Greta. Why Are You Still Catholic? Posted on Greta Christina’s blog on May 25, 2010. Retrieved on September 20, 2010 from http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2010/05/why-are-y.html.
The link has been updated to http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2010/05/25/why-are-y/, because Greta Christina’s blog is now at Freethought Blogs.
[11] Smith, Joan. In defence of modern Britain. Posted on September 2, 2010 at The Independent. Retrieved on September 18, 2010 from http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-in-defence-of-modern-britain-2067886.html.
[12] Lee, Adam. A Followup on the Pope Protest. Posted on September 23, 2010 on Daylight Atheism. Retrieved on September 28, 2010 from http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/09/followup-on-pope-protest.html.
[13] Sharmin, Ani. On Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. Posted on May 20, 2010 at Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on September 20, 2010 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/on-everybody-draw-mohammad-day/.
[14] Sharmin, Ani. Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism: Some Thoughts on Park 51 and Islam [Part 3 of 3]. Posted on September 9, 2010. Retrieved on September 20, 2010 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/arithmetic-and-criticism-part-3/.
Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism: Some Thoughts on Park51 and Islam [Part 3 of 3]
[To read Part 2, click here.]
The Importance of Reasonable Criticism
As an apostate from Islam, I know that there is much in Islam which deserves criticism. I have no reason to believe that I will agree with the beliefs being taught at Park51; given my disagreement with Islam, I think it is very likely that I will disagree with the religious beliefs of the Muslims who pray there, even if they are not extremists. Whether my disagreement is merely one concerning the existence of God (a disagreement which I can have with a person while still maintaining great respect for that person) or an actual condemnation of a hateful and discriminatory ideology will be based primarily on what kind of Islam is believed in and promoted by the people at Park51.
It is a source of annoyance and worry to me that the criticism of Islam, which I consider so important, comes too often not from those who value freedom but from those with a desire to discriminate. It is important to remember that there is a crucial difference between criticism and discrimination; to speak out against the horrible practices that are all too common within Islam is valid criticism while stopping a group of Muslims from practicing their faith (in ways that are not infringing on the rights or safety of others) is discrimination. The same is true for any other faith.
Given the danger being caused by the Islamic faith all around the world, I think criticism of it is vitally needed. The important qualifiers are that the criticism must be reasonable and based on evidence. Alternative ideas must actually be better and not just more nonsense. Criticizing a bad idea with another bad idea doesn’t move humanity in a good direction, but keeps us forever repeating our mistakes. The reason I supported Everybody Draw Mohammad Day, for instance, is because the protest was based upon the evidence of people being unjustly threatening for drawing Mohammad and because I thought it was a good way to make the point that people should be able to exercise their freedom of speech, even if it offends another person’s beliefs.[1]
Many of the reasons being given for not building this Islamic center do not contain any reason why this particular institution or the people within it will be a threat requiring legal action. There have been arguments over the imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, due to comments he’s made in the past. If there was evidence of funding from a terrorist organization or a reason to think that the people would be involved in illegal activities, then that would be cause for concern and further investigation. If there is no illegal activity going on, then criticism, but not legal action, is warranted.
There is the issue of expressing disagreement with a person or group while still respecting their rights. I think Christopher Hitchens (eloquent as always) makes good points in two articles. In Mau-Mauing the Mosque: The dispute over the “Ground Zero Mosque” is an object lesson in how not to resist intolerance, he expresses concern about the views of the imam and the mosque (in addition to his obvious disagreements with Islam, expressed elsewhere at length) and then goes on to criticize the unreasonable arguments being used by those opposed to the mosque, writing “Where to start with this part-pathetic and part-sinister appeal to demagogy? To begin with, it borrows straight from the playbook of Muslim cultural blackmail. Claim that something is ‘offensive,’ and it is as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument.” When the actions of those criticizing Islam begins to resemble the actions of those seeking to make excuses for the harm it causes, one finds oneself listening to an endless string of baseless arguments. Hitchens ends the article with, “We need not automatically assume the good faith of those who have borrowed this noble name [Cordoba] for a project in lower Manhattan. One would want assurances, also, about the transparency of its funding and the content of its educational programs. But the way to respond to such overtures is by critical scrutiny and engagement, not cheap appeals to parochialism, victimology, and unreason.”[2] He wrote another article A Test of Tolerance: The “Ground Zero mosque” debate is about tolerance — and a whole lot more, in which he expands upon his concerns about the views of Imam Rauf and points out that Muslims in some Western European countries have taken advantage of the idea of equal rights and tolerance of religion to demand discrimination based on their religious beliefs and censorship of ideas which they find offensive. Hitchens ends the article with, “Let us by all means make the ‘Ground Zero’ debate a test of tolerance. But this will be a one-way street unless it is to be a test of Muslim tolerance as well.”[3] I think that Hitchens is correct on this issue and expresses it wonderfully well. Religious people need to realize that tolerance means not just tolerating religion, but also expecting religious people to tolerate those who disagree with them; it means standing up for equal rights and not giving special privileges to religion. I am glad that Hitchens can simultaneously take apart the ridiculous nature of some of the arguments against Park 51 while offering his own criticisms of Islam. In a similar vein, in his second blog entry on Park51, Professor PZ Myers correctly points out that if expressing support for theocracy was made illegal, it would affect a great many religious leaders, including many Christians, and that this would be unfair, violating their rights. What is necessary, he adds, is that “we stand back and make it an open example of the principle of liberty that they can build anything they want (within zoning laws), whether it is a mosque, a synagogue, a cathedral, a community center, or a retirement home for mentally ill clowns, but that that freedom does have reasonable community constraints that they are voluntarily accepting, and there’s no going back and saying after the fact that the ideology of their building occupants allows them to violate local laws.”[4] Respecting the First Amendment rights of a religious group does not mean that we should blindly trust them; simultaneously, criticism of a religion should not turn into discrimination or an acceptance of any argument made against them no matter how unreasonable and ridiculous that argument is.
We need more people who are willing to criticize anyone who acts unreasonably, even if it means disagreeing with both sides and stating one’s own dissenting opinion. One person who attempts to do this is Irshad Manji, who is a Muslim speaking out for reform in Islam. In A Muslim Reformer on the Mosque: The warriors for tolerance and the antimosque crusaders are both wrong, she calls out Imam Rauf, who criticized the Danish cartoons of Mohammad based upon the feelings of Muslims who were offended but now does not accept the feelings of Americans opposed to the location of Park51 as a valid argument. Manji says that she is offended by the location, but that it does present an opportunity. She writes the following:
But for all the restless offense I feel, I step back and force myself to think. As I wrestle with the issues, I realize that an opportunity exists for something more constructive than anger.
Namely, accountability. If Park51 gets built, thanks to its provocative location the nation will scrutinize what takes place inside. Americans have the opportunity right now to be clear about the civic values expected from any Islam practiced at the site.
That means setting aside bombast and asking the imam questions born of the highest American ideals: individual dignity and pluralism of ideas.
Among the topics that Manji suggests we should ask questions about are whether the swimming pool will be segregated, whether women will be able to lead prayers, whether non-Muslims will be welcome to pray in the prayer area, what will be taught about homosexuals and apostates, and where one will be able to get tickets to a lecture given by Mr. Salman Rushdie at Park51.[5] All of these are exactly the right questions to ask, and we should not shy away from asking them just as we would of any other organization or religion. As Ophelia Benson points out, “Of course, people who make a fetish of ‘tolerance’ without really thinking about what it should mean tend to think questions of that kind are none of their business. That’s why they need, as Manji points out, to think about all this, not just emote about it.”[6] Too often, people misinterpret the First Amendment to mean that religion should be above criticism and that religious groups should be able to get away with all sorts of ridiculous actions without facing criticism, due to the fact that believers justify their actions using quotes from holy texts. This is an unreasonable interpretation. To demand that religious freedom includes censorship of religious criticism is, in effect, to argue that religious freedom only applies to some people while others must remain silent. This is absolutely contradictory to the idea that freedoms apply to everyone.
Criticism must be based on evidence and be reasonable, offering valid arguments. We should keep in mind that rights and freedoms, not fear and hatred, should be the goal of this criticism.
Conclusion
One of many great characteristics of this country, one of the many things which do indeed make our society better than the beliefs of those who attacked us, is that we believe in equal rights and freedom. These freedoms must be extended to each person — not only to people who are members of the majority religion. We must understand that freedom means that everyone, including those whose views we may disagree with, should have equal rights. Let us act in such a way that no person has just cause to claim they were wronged or had their rights taken away.
There are times when freedom is violated, when people use the practice of their beliefs as an excuse for taking away the rights of other individuals, and in these instances when it is essential to speak up. We must do so with the goal of securing freedoms and rights.
I find it frustrating that so many people will speak at length about the distance between a mosque and Ground Zero and be willing to spend time protesting it, but then will be conspicuously silent when there are real human rights abuses occurring in Islam on a regular basis (or, alternatively, will only bring up such human rights abuses when it suits their political goals and soon forget about them once election season is over). We have for ourselves a situation in which the reasonable criticism of Islam gets drowned out by the unreasonable, bigoted, and incoherent arguments made by those whose main motivation for opposing Islam is the desire to win an election or to create a government based upon their own religion. This will not get us anywhere.
What is needed is a willingness to address the real issues within Islam. We should criticize Islam with reasonable arguments and not just baseless nonsense. Let us ask the important questions about the problems within Islam and not be so focused on doing some weird arithmetic to figure out how far Park51 should be from Ground Zero, and let us do this with an actual concern for the human rights of both non-Muslims and Muslims who are currently being harmed.
Secular criticism of Islam is needed, with the goal freedom and human rights for all. My concern is that a continuation of a fight between Islam and unreasonable critics of Islam will result in less freedom and the continuation of human rights violations. The way to actually improve the situation is for critics of Islam to support freedom and show concern for those who are being hurt by Islam. We should remember always that freedom and rights are for each individual, and that it is wrong for leaders of religious groups to cite freedom in an attempt to actually take away freedom, whether from members of other religions or from members of their own religion. People who have been hesitant to speak out due to the sometimes ridiculous and discriminatory nature of some criticisms of Islam should feel motivated to counter the ridiculous critics by offering real criticism of Islam, so that there is progress in human rights, as opposed to just pointless and ineffective yelling.
Truth, freedom, and equal rights should be considered most important. We may not always agree with one another; however, people who disagree on the details but believe first and foremost in freedom can work together, discuss ideas, and learn from one another.
It is in hope that I write this, and perhaps my hope for a better world will be realized. I do think there is something within us as humans, which gives us the potential to imagine a better future and the determination to build it.
#
Acknowledgments
I have quoted extensively from some of the many articles and blog posts that I’ve come across recently, and given credit to the authors when appropriate. I offer many thanks to all of the people who wrote these pieces and inspired me. I’ve done my best to accurately represent their words and to honestly express my agreement and disagreement. I very much recommend reading all of the linked articles and blog entries; their authors have some very thought-provoking ideas.
References
[1] Sharmin, Ani. On Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. Posted on May 20, 2010 at Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on August 21, 2010 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/on-everybody-draw-mohammad-day/.
[2] Hitchens, Christopher. Mau-Mauing the Mosque: The dispute over the “Ground Zero Mosque” is an object lesson in how not to resist intolerance. Posted on August 9, 2010 in Slate Magazine. Retrieved on August 21, 2010 from http://www.slate.com/id/2263334.
[3] Hitchens, Christopher. A Test of Tolerance: The “Ground Zero mosque” debate is about tolerance — and a whole lot more. Posted on August 23, 2010 in Slate Magazine. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/.
[4] Myers, PZ. I don’t like the Manhattan mosque, but they’ve got the right — as long as I’ve got the right to point and laugh. Posted on September 1, 2010 at Pharyngula. Retrieved on September 9, 2010 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/i_dont_like_the_manhattan_mosq.php.
[5] Manji, Irshad. A Muslim Reformer on the Mosque: The warriors for tolerance and the antimosque crusaders are both wrong. Posted on August 26, 2010 at The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on August 27, 2010 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451433090488678.html.
[6] Benson, Ophelia. Hitchens and Manji. Posted on August 27, 2010 at Butterflies and Wheels. Retrieved on August 27, 2010 from http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/hitchens-and-manji/.
Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism: Some Thoughts on Park51 and Islam [Part 2 of 3]
[To read Part 1, click here.]
Synagogues in Saudi Arabia
There is the important issue of the persecution and discrimination faced by non-Muslims in various theocratic Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia. I for one will be overjoyed when Jewish people can build synagogues in Saudi Arabia and when people of all various faiths can build their houses of worship in countries where they now cannot. The question then arises of how we can bring this about.
Since it is certain governments and other violent groups which are persecuting people of different faiths and no religious faith, I think that any ultimatums we place should be against these groups particularly, instead of against all members of the faith. It is reasonable to demand that the Saudi Arabian government cannot finance any mosques on American soil as long as it does not give equal rights to all people. It is unreasonable to demand that, due to the actions of the Saudi Arabian government, no Muslims can build mosques in America. (The idea that all Muslims would be in support of the governments which persecute non-Muslims is ridiculous in and of itself, since these same governments often also make the lives of the Muslims within their countries a living hell.)
I love the United States and the freedoms we have here; I think the goal should be to create a world in which more people have these freedoms.[1] The suggestion we should model our behavior on the atrocious actions of the despicable House of Saud would, if acted upon, ruin all that our ancestors worked for. Instead of moving in the right direction to gain equality for more people, we would be taking away freedom from the few people on the planet who do have it.
Peter Beinart makes this point in America Has Disgraced Itself at The Daily Beast. (I take exception to the title but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, since editors often choose or change the title of the article.) Although I don’t share his newfound pining for President George W. Bush, I think his general point is valid. He writes, “Now, Newt Gingrich says we shouldn’t build a mosque in Lower Manhattan until the Saudis build churches and synagogues in Mecca — which is to say, we’re bringing Saudi values to the United States.” Beinart seems to understand a crucial idea which many others seem oblivious to, which is that we cannot defeat religious intolerance and bigotry by modeling our own actions on the actions of government officials of a country whose people are regularly oppressed by religious tyranny.
Beinart also makes a another good point near the end of the article, writing,
And oh yes, my fellow Jews, who are so thrilled to be locked arm in arm with the heirs of Pat Robertson and Father Coughlin against the Islamic threat. Evidently, it’s never crossed your mind that the religious hatred you have helped unleash could turn once again against us. Of course not, we’re insiders in this society now: Our synagogues grace the toniest of suburbs; our rabbis speak flawless English; we Jews are now effortlessly white. Barely anyone remembers that folks in lower Manhattan once considered us alien and dangerous, too.[2]
There have been Jewish people on both sides of this issue; I am grateful for the secular reforms within Judaism and for many Jewish people’s willingness to speak up against wrongdoing, even when some members of their own religion are participating. Beinart’s main point is valid, in that it is highly suspect and ridiculous when people who are themselves often targets of discrimination line up to discriminate against others. I am grateful that there are many people who do realize that discrimination is wrong even if they themselves are not the targets.
Ultimately, the correct response to religious discrimination is not more discrimination. One would think that people should have realized this just by looking around themselves and thinking, but sadly it needs to be pointed out.
The “True Islam” and Terror
One of the ongoing disagreements about Islam for about nine years now has been the question of whether Islam played a role in the attacks of September 11, 2001. When discussing this Islamic Center, the argument is sometimes framed in the wrong way, with some suggesting that Muslims should not be able to build Park51 because Islam played a role in the attacks and others suggesting that Muslims should be able to build Park51 because “true Islam” did not play a role in the attacks. I personally choose a third option: Islam (or a certain version of it) was involved in the attacks, but Muslims who did not participate in those attacks and are not involved with any similar terrorist organizations should be able to build an Islamic center if they want to. In other words, the claim being made about Islam not having anything to do with the attacks and others like them in many places around the world is an exercise in denial, but it is not a valid reason for stopping people who were not responsible for those attacks from building a religious community center.
The idea of building Park51 to show that Islam is peaceful and that the beliefs of the September 11th terrorists were not a part of “true Islam” seems dubious to me. Peaceful Muslims will rightly point out that Islam cannot be judged based upon the actions of just the extremists and called a religion of violence; however, it is also true that Islam cannot be judged based solely upon the actions of peaceful Muslims and thereby called a religion of peace. Just as peaceful, freedom-loving Muslims would not consider the terrorists “real Muslims”, the terrorists would likewise not consider peaceful, freedom-loving Muslims “real Muslims”. I do hope, of course, that the Muslims who will go to Park51 will play a role in improving Islam to move it away from the extremism, but even if they did, they still would not really have a claim to “true Islam” — though maybe they’d have a claim to a more peaceful Islam, which is something to hope for, in my desire for a better and safer future with more freedom, even if I think their God is just as fictional as the horrible one believed in by other Muslims.
As it is, I have grown accustomed (as I’m sure have many others) to various ideological groups mutually excommunicating those they disagree with and claiming that their own version is the “true” version of whatever ideology they espouse. (As Julie Clawson points out, it is also highly ridiculous for members of one faith — in this case, Christianity — who regularly use the “true faith” excuse for extreme members of their own faith to then generalize about all of the members of another faith — in this case, Islam.[3]) The debate about “true Islam” (as that of “true Christianity”[4]) is one for another day and another entry. As it pertains to the issue at hand, whether or not the Islam of those who will attend Park51 is “true Islam” is unclear. If the people at Park 51 are involved in illegal activities, that calls for government involvement; if they are not doing anything illegal but are doing something we disagree with, then it is appropriate to speak out and protest.
Addressing the problems within Islam is a bigger issue than Park51, and moving Park51 is not going to solve them. We need rather to actually discuss and confront the real problems within Islam in a reasonable way. Sam Harris has written two articles about this issue, making it clear that he believes that the people building Park51 have the Constitutional right to do so, and then going on to express his concerns about the religion of Islam and the denial that many moderate Muslims are in over the problems within the faith. Although I disagree with some suggestions he has made in the past, he does offer very clear explanations of the problems with religion. In What Obama Got Wrong About the Mosque (which was actually written, according to Harris, before President Obama made a statement and then given this title later by an editor), Harris writes, “My friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali is said to be suffering from it [Islamophobia]. Though she was circumcised as a girl by religious barbarians (as 98 percent of Somali girls still are) has been in constant flight from theocrats ever since, and must retain a bodyguard everywhere she goes, even her criticism of Islam is viewed as a form of ‘bigotry’ and ‘racism’ by many ‘moderate’ Muslims. And yet, moderate Muslims should be the first to observe how obscene Muslim bullying is—and they should be the first to defend the right of public intellectuals, cartoonists, and novelists to criticize the faith.” A part of the problem is that moderate Muslims take great offense at any criticism of their faith while ignoring the far worse offenses committed by their fellow Muslims, against both non-Muslims and Muslims. Even when they are presented with arguments from people who themselves grew up in an Islamic home and were treated badly due to the religious teachings, many Muslims remain in denial (and others who are aware of the problems may be afraid to speak out).
We come again to the issue of true Islam and response to terrorism of Muslims around the world. Harris continues, “The claim that the events of September 11, 2001, had ‘nothing to do with Islam’ is an abject and destabilizing lie. This murder of 3,000 innocents was viewed as a victory for the One True Faith by millions of Muslims throughout the world (even, idiotically, by those who think it was perpetrated by the Mossad).” Related to the refusal to criticize faith is the denial that anything horrible done was influenced or inspired by faith. There is also the fact that a horrible event may be celebrated by some members of a faith and mourned by others. How does one address believers who say that they were horrified at a terrible crime when others of the same faith celebrated it? How does one address the issue of religion’s culpability when there are so many disparate forms of the religion being practiced? How can one convince followers who are not contributing to the violence that the book to which they subscribe contains passages which (although ignored by some believers) are nonetheless horrible and provide inspiration to extremists? Is there a possibility that some Muslims will make an effort to differentiate between the actual discrimination that they face and the legitimate criticism of their faith that they should pay more attention to?
Harris concludes, “Perhaps there is some form of Islam that could issue from this site that would be better, all things considered, than simply not building another mosque in the first place. But this leads me to a somewhat paradoxical conclusion: American Muslims should be absolutely free to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero; but the ones who should do it probably wouldn’t want to.”[5] Harris seems to be saying that moderate Muslims, who could potentially take steps forward to reform Islam, would probably not build a mosque near Ground Zero out of respect for the site; specifically that which would make them a positive presence also motivates them to take into consideration how others would feel about their actions.
In another article, Harris writes that too many Muslims are remaining silent about the extremism in Islam and gives an example of what he would expect Imam Rauf to say if the imam wants to be considered an actual moderate and allay people’s fears. He ends with, “Find an imam who will speak this way, and gather followers who think this way, and I’ll volunteer to cut the ribbon on his mosque in lower Manhattan.”[6] So, we are back to the idea of so-called moderates being silent and unwilling to properly address the problems within their faith. It seems that it is often the case that the more extreme members of the faith are more organized and vocal; while we as a society should want more participation and cooperation from the moderates of a faith, it is the extremists who make themselves heard more easily and demand attention. Many times, it seems that a person may or may not be a moderate; there are religious leaders who, perhaps wanting to cooperate somewhat with secular society but not wanting to upset the more conservative members of their own religion, make vague statements about the problems within their own religion, being careful not to lay the blame on religion itself (or certain parts of it).
Fortunately, despite the silence, there are some Muslims who are indeed willing to speak out about the problems within their own faith. Asra Q. Nomani writes in A Muslim Questions the Mosque about the problems within Islam. “We’re not being honest in our Muslim community about the violent ideology inside of our Muslim world that needs to be defeated, and so the war has spread beyond our community to include the Tea Party activists. In the name of political correctness, too many inside our Muslim community have been apologists for Islam, feeling defensive, but not being as brutally honest as the world needs us to be about this problem.” Although I cringe at her kind words towards the sometimes ridiculous and sometimes discriminatory Tea Party supporters, I think she makes a valid point about the extremism and, I am glad she points out that many liberal and progressive Americans have not offered “a nuanced, intelligent critique of extremist Islamic ideology, currying pluralism points instead in the name of interfaith relations”. This, I think, is what has resulted in a situation in which many of the people who could offer secular and intelligent criticism of the extremism in Islam are not willing to. There are some who do, but their voices get drowned out by those who really are hateful and who want to discriminate against Muslims. This should convince more people who believe in equal rights to criticize Islam from a secular point of view, with the goal of human rights, so that the only people criticizing Islam are not those who are hateful. Nomani points out what is needed in Islam and illustrates one of the problems in Islam when she writes, “We need an expression of institutional Islam that is moderate, progressive and liberal. We don’t have it yet. There is only one mosque in America where women can pray in the front row. It’s in Toledo, Ohio.”[7] This should make any Muslim question the idea that the discriminatory ideologies within Islam are just a small fringe. Although the worst of the terrorist attacks may be committed by a small fringe, other actions of discrimination and hate are supported by many more. Ignoring these violations of rights is not right, and it is frustrating that many Muslims (using the excuse “We’re not terrorists”) try to hide the other, more ubiquitous, problems within Islam.
There is perhaps some potential for a more secular form of Islam to challenge the extremism that is so much of a problem in the world today. I have mentioned previously that I am of two minds on this, hoping for a reformed secular form of Islam (so that there is less violence and so that more people within the religion itself can gain equal rights) while disbelieving in a nice version of God just as much as I disbelieve in a horrible version of God.[8] Currently, though, there is no question that there are big problems within Islam.
The question then arises: How should we address them properly?
[To read Part 3, click here.]
[1] Sharmin, Ani. The Fourth of July in Four Parts. Posted on July 4, 2010 at Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on August 21, 2010 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/the-fourth-of-july-in-four-parts/.
[2] Beinart, Peter. America Has Disgraced Itself. Posted on August 17, 2010 at The Daily Beast. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-17/ground-zero-mosque-controversy-america-has-disgraced-itself/.
[3] Clawson, Julie. A Christian response to the Islamic community center near Ground Zero. Posted on August 10, 2010 at Common Ground News Service. Retrieved on August 29, 2010 from http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=28282&lan=en&sid=1&sp=0&isNew=1.
[4] Eberhard, JT. An Old Letter about true ™ Christianity. Posted on April 14, 2009 on Zerowing21’s Xanga. Retrieved on August 21, 2010 from http://zerowing21.xanga.com/698959756/an-old-letter-about-true-tm-christianity/.
[5] Harris, Sam. What Obama Got Wrong About the Mosque. Posted on August 13, 2010 at The Daily Beast. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/.
[6] Harris, Sam. Silence is not moderation. Posted on August 24, 2010 at The Washington Post’s On Faith section. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2010/08/silence_is_not_moderation.html.
[7] Nomani, Asra Q. A Muslim Questions the Mosque. Posted on August 10, 2010 at The Daily Beast. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-10/why-muslims-like-me-agree-with-the-tea-party-activists/.
[8] Sharmin, Ani. Foundations of Dissonance? Posted on July 22, 2010 at Eternal Bookshelf. Retrieved on September 9, 2010 from http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/foundations-of-dissonance/.
Weird Arithmetic and Reasonable Criticism: Some Thoughts on Park51 and Islam [Part 1 of 3]
Introduction
Given the recent controversy over the building of Park51 (a.k.a. Cordoba House), an Islamic community center and mosque, in New York City near Ground Zero, the site of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I’ve decided to write an entry containing some of my thoughts about the topic. Professor PZ Myers has stated that he does not care about a mosque/community center in New York,[1] and I might not have either if it wasn’t the topic of so many television segments, news articles, and blog posts (some of which have been incessantly pouring into my feed reader).
It was, however, a good opportunity for me to do some thinking about the various issues that are being brought up, colliding with one another, and being mixed together (sometimes appropriately and sometimes not) in the discussion and argument over this project. This entry is my attempt to gather my thoughts and write them in a somewhat coherent fashion.
First Amendment
Whatever houses of worship may be built in this great land, their continued existence and the freedom of those within them depends on how diligently we build and maintain the wall between church and state (or, in this case, I suppose mosque and state). A legal argument against Park51 can be made if it is found that it is involved in illegal activities or is receiving funding from a criminal organization. The legal attempt to shut down the project cannot be based upon its proximity to Ground Zero. An attempt by the government to choose one religion over another, to stop one religion from building a house of worship in a place where another religion would be permitted to do so (all else being equal) on their own property, would be a violation of the First Amendment. We will all have certain times when we have to say that we absolutely disagree with what someone does while supporting their right to do it, but it is not right to take legal action against a group for doing something that we disagree with.
Tied up in all of this is the noticeable self-contradiction of those who regularly speak up in favor of freedom of religion for their own group, but who deny that same freedom to others. I think part of the justified reflexive defense of the community center is due to the fact that some of the people speaking out against it (especially some of the politicians and news anchors) have in the past shown that they favor one religion — particularly Christianity — over all others, so there is the question whether their criticism is coming from a genuine concern or from their own bias. Combined with similar protests against and vandalism of mosques in other places around the country and the horrifying violence against Muslims, this raises the suspicion that the protests are due to the fact that the people are Muslim and not based on any reasonable argument. There is a concern that at least some of the people speaking against the community center really do not favor separation of church and state and may be in favor of taking away the rights of non-Christians. (This is, of course, not true for everyone. When Susan Jacoby writes that she supports the First Amendment right of those building Park 51, but questions whether it should be built so close to Ground Zero,[2] I believe that she actual does support the First Amendment and equal rights for people of different religions, since she has shown this in her previous writings. She has even written a book called Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism about the important role that secular people and ideas played in American history, including contributions made by both religious and non-religious supporters of secularism.) When others, such as Sarah Palin, claim that they support the rights of those building Park51, but question the wisdom of it, I am suspicious of their motivations, given their support for a nation based upon their own religious beliefs. Since not all the critics of Park51 are supporters of separation of church and state (based on their past statements), there is a need to reaffirm secularism, which is always a good goal. We should remember that secularism is one of the ideas which make this country great, and there are several people who have expressed this sentiment during this whole debate and drama.
Hemant Mehta, in What freedoms will we lose next? (his first article for The Washington Post’s On Faith section) makes a good point about not blaming all Muslims for the 9/11 attacks (just as we should not blame all Christians for something horrible done by some Christians) and writes, “Why do I support the building of the mosque? Because we live in a country that supports freedom of religion, even when we disagree with others’ beliefs. I support it because they’re paying for the space and they have every right to build there.”[3] We cannot start deciding that the First Amendment only applies to certain groups and not to others. Those who routinely say that the Christians who take horrible actions are not “real Christians” should ask themselves what they would think of their freedom being limited based on what other Christians have done.
Herb Silverman, in Mosque is insensitive; so are pandering politicians, criticizes the politicians whose clichéd arguments have gained them undue publicity and then goes on to write that he agrees that the mosque is insensitive. Ultimately, he states quite plainly, “It is my right to be bothered by this, it’s the right of others to be bothered by the potential mosque at Ground Zero, and it’s absolutely the right of American Muslims to build it. Observing Constitutional principles may be bothersome, but that’s a small price to pay for the liberties our Constitution guarantees.”[4] Following the Constitution and agreeing that others have rights, even if we disagree with them, may not always be easy, but it is necessary if we want to preserve our freedoms and rights. The hope that humans will be able to grant others the liberties they themselves so cherish is the basis of my hope that a secular society can work and thrive.
Arthur Waskow tells a touching story about his grandmother in Mosques in America: Rabbi Hillel, George Washington, & my grandma, reminding readers of the promise of freedom that American stands for. Just as his grandmother remembered the horrible way Jewish people were treated in Europe and knew that it was wrong to treat Black people that way (even when other Jewish women were talking about them with contempt), Waskow remembers his grandmother and reminds us that we must not treat Muslims that way. He thinks it is right to build Park51, which will be “[a] beacon of the Islam that celebrates the God Who is Compassion. A beacon of truth, of hope, of peace to vanquish the hatred and despair and violence that murdered 3,000 people of many different nations and many different faiths in the World Trade Center.”[5] I am glad he has hope for the emergence of a better Islam that will not be as fraught with problems as the religion is right now. Perhaps if more Muslims were willing to speak up against the extremism in their own faith and create a new Islam that would be more secular and supportive of equal rights, we would have a better world.
What makes the situation even more absurd is that one suggestion that’s been made concerning the moving of the mosque actually would violate the First Amendment. Over at The Wall of Separation (the blog of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) Sandhya Bathija has written a blog entry titled Land Plan Panned: N.Y. Governor’s Islamic Center ‘Compromise’ Draws Fire, in which she comments on a statement by Governor David Paterson. According to Glenn Blain at The New York Daily News, Governor Paterson supports the Park51 Islamic Center and has said, “Frankly, if the sponsors were looking for property anywhere at a distance that would be such that it would accommodate a better feeling among the people who are frustrated, I would look into trying to provide them with the state property they would need.”[6] Bathija writes at The Wall that this idea will fortunately probably not be put into action due to the fact that it’s obviously unconstitutional. (She links to an article[7] by Justin Elliot at Salon, in which Barry Lynn, Americans United’s executive director, and Professor Jay Wexler express concerns about such an idea.) She points out in her blog entry that a suggestion like Patterson’s (providing state property to a religious group for a religious place of worship) “should outrage Americans, yet it’s hardly caused a stir. At the same time, when a private group wants to build a religion-based community center on private land, some find cause for a public uproar. All this goes to show that many Americans could benefit from another glance at the Constitution, and that includes Paterson.”[8] It does often amaze me that more people are not more concerned about separation of church and state, but as can been seen above, there are many who do. This gives me hope.
It is absolutely essential to remind both ourselves and our fellow humans deserve to have equal rights. Demanding that they should voluntarily give up their equal rights (especially when such criticism is coming from those who have shown their own support for discrimination in the past) is unreasonable and wrong. (It is for this reason that I also support the rights of peaceful protesters who are against Park 51 to express their views, just as I support the right of the people who are building it.) I am glad that there are many people who realize the importance of secularism and of the First Amendment, even for those whose religious beliefs they do not agree with.
Rebuilding Ground Zero
Any hallowed nature associated with Ground Zero is not a characteristic force emanating from the spot itself but rather the hurt that is felt in the hearts of human beings when we look upon a site and remember the horrid events of the past. When Sarah Palin claims that the planned mosque “stabs hearts”, it is as an American that I reply that the real stab to my heart was the actual attack. What further stabs my heart is the attempt by various groups (including, to various extents, the groups both in favor of and against Park51) to use what was a tragedy for our country to forward their own agendas, which contain little or nothing in the way of either dealing with the extremism within Islam or protecting our freedoms, including those outlined in the First Amendment. It is important that we remember what is really important and do not focus on inanimate objects. As Susan Jacoby writes in What makes ground so “sacred” that it provides soil for profane behavior?, “Truth and knowledge, not ground or steps, are sacred.”[9]
The rebuilding of Ground Zero, including a memorial to those who died, has not moved forward by much, and this is a cause of sadness for many Americans, including myself. We are still living with the memory of these attacks, and that memory will never go away. We desire to do something to honor those who died, and lack of such a memorial makes us feel that we are not properly remembering them, that we have been lax in taking the correct action.
There is also the issue of other religious buildings. In the arguments against Park51, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church is sometimes mentioned. The anger over the fact that the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church has not yet been rebuilt is understandable, but I don’t understand how that is related to the building of Park51. The Islamic center is not being built to replace St. Nicholas. The fact that the rebuilding of Ground Zero and St. Nicholas has been slow is not, to my knowledge, caused by some kind of covert plan by the people planning to build Park51. The various building projects going on in our country are not in competition with one another. The fact that Park51 has been approved while plans for Ground Zero and the St. Nicholas Church have not yet moved forward does not mean the government is endorsing Islam or insulting either Christians or Americans in general. One difference between St. Nicholas and Park51 is that St. Nicholas was actually destroyed in the attacks and is in the area that has sadly not yet been rebuilt, whereas Park51 is two blocks away. If all the circumstances surrounding the rebuilding of the church were the same as those involved in building Park 51, then I would expect it to be given the same approval as Park51. There seem to be various issues affecting the rebuilding of St. Nicholas. As Nicole Neroulias writes in an entry at the Beliefnet Blog, “St. Nicholas, a Greek Orthodox church with only a few dozen regular worshipers before 9/11, has been mired in Ground Zero-specific bureaucracy for years, trying to hammer out a deal with the Port Authority to swap its tiny piece of land for a bigger plot and receive millions of dollars in public funds for the construction and security requirements.”[10] She writes in an article at Religion News Service that the plans for Park51 have motivated people to ask about why more progress has not been made on the church, and goes on the explain the various circumstances and events which lead to the delays. “The entire Ground Zero rebuilding process has taken years longer than expected, due to the arduous rescue, recovery and rubble-removal efforts, followed by the bureaucratic process of establishing property ownership and designing the memorial and buildings.”[11] It is clear that, despite the understandable upset of the Greek Orthodox community in New York City, blaming the people building Park51 for the delay in rebuilding St. Nicholas is the incorrect response. Although I disagree with both Islam and Christianity, I support the right of members of both of these religions to build their places of worship. It seems that in addition to being important to the Greek Orthodox community in New York, St. Nicholas also has a long history behind it. I look forward to Ground Zero, including St. Nicholas, being rebuilt.
The relevant parts of this situation, to me, are protecting freedom and equality, building of a memorial to those who died, and dealing with Islamic extremism that played a role in the attacks in the first place. Moving the mosque will not accomplish any of this. The distance between Ground Zero and Park51, to me, is not completely irrelevant, but one of the least relevant points of the whole situation. (This is mostly because the center is not actually on Ground Zero; if it was, then I would be opposed to the location, because I think there should be a memorial there.) As Jeffrey Rowland illustrates in this cartoon, the whole argument is ridiculous and YHWH has not shown a preference in the matter (which is as I expected, given the deity’s propensity for revealing contradictory messages to different members of humanity). Rowland writes beneath the cartoon, “Exactly what is a ‘safe distance’ to put your Muslim Community Center away from a place so that it doesn’t have some imaginary effect on it? I’d prefer a ban on ALL religious buildings being built within 1,000 miles of a place where ANY MEMBER of ANY SPECIFIC religious organization did some harm unto society.”[12] Well, that would considerably decrease the number of houses of worship, but it would of course, not be in line with the freedom of religion on which we place great value. The cartoon and its caption illustrate perfectly the problem we face when trying to determine exactly how far away this Islamic center can be from Ground Zero.
What type of weird arithmetic can we come up with to determine exactly how far away a religious place of worship has to be from the site of a disaster? Does this vary depending on how many people were killed? Does the rule apply to all religions or only to one? Does it apply to all the people who follow the same religion as the perpetrators of the attack or to those of the same denomination?
All of this is not only confusing but misses the point entirely. The building is not the cause of the problems within Islam, but the bad ideas and actions of certain people and groups within Islam. It is important to identify and criticize these ideas and people while realizing that many Muslims themselves also realize the problem and are being hurt by members of their own faith.
[To read Part 2, click here.]
References
[1] Myers, PZ. I don’t care about a mosque/community center in New York. Posted on August 16, 2010 at Pharyngula. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/i_dont_care_about_a_mosquecomm.php.
[2] Jacoby, Susan. Ground Zero mosque protected by First Amendment—but it’s still salt in a wound. Posted on August 4, 2010 at The Washington Post’s On Faith section. Retrieved on August 25, 2010 from http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/08/ground_zero_mosque_protected_by_first_amendment–but_its_still_salt_in_a_wound.html.
[3] Mehta, Hemant. What freedoms will we lose next? Posted on August 16, 2010 at The Washington Post’s On Faith section. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Hemant_Mehta/2010/08/what_freedoms_will_we_lose_next.html.
[4] Silverman, Herb. Mosque is insensitive; so are pandering politicians. Posted on July 19, 2010 at The Washington Post’s On Faith section. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/herb_silverman/2010/07/sarah_palin_and_alvin_greene.html.
[5] Waskow, Arthur. Mosques in America: Rabbi Hillel, George Washington, & my grandma. Posted on August 16, 2010 at The Washington Post’s On Faith section. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/arthur_waskow/2010/08/mosques_in_america_rabbi_hillel_g_washington_my_grandma.html.
[6] Quote of Paterson, David (Governor of NY). Blain, Glenn. Gov. Paterson: No objection to Ground Zero mosque, but floats state land for less controversial site. Posted on August 10, 2010 at The New York Daily News. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/10/2010-08-10_gov_paterson_no_objection_to_ground_zero_mosque_but_floats_state_land_for_less_c.html.
[7] Elliott, Justin. Law prof: Paterson mosque plan may be unconstitutional. Posted on August 10, 2010 at Salon. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/10/paterson_mosque_plan_constitution.
[8] Bathija, Sandhya. Land Plan Panned: N.Y. Governor’s Islamic Center ‘Compromise’ Draws Fire. Posted on August 11, 2010 at The Wall of Separation, blog of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from https://blog.au.org/2010/08/11/land-plan-panned-n-y-governor’s-islamic-center-‘compromise’-draws-fire/.
[9] Jacoby, Susan. What makes ground so “sacred” that it provides soil for profane behavior? Posted on September 1, 2010 at Washington Post’s On Faith section. Retrieved on September 8, 2010 from http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/09/what_makes_ground_so_sacred_that_people_spill_more_blood_over_it.html.
[10] Neroulias, Nicole. The Real Story Behind the ‘Ground Zero Church’ Rebuilding Delay. Posted on August 24, 2010 at the Beliefnet blog. Retrieved on September 8, 2010 from http://blog.beliefnet.com/beliefbeat/2010/08/the-story-behind-the-ground-zero-church-rebuilding-stalemate.html.
[11] Neroulias, Nicole. Future of destroyed Ground Zero Orthodox church in doubt. Posted on August 23, 2010 at Religion News Service. Retrieved on September 8, 2010 from http://www.religionnews.com/index.php?/rnstext/future_of_destroyed_ground_zero_orthodox_church_in_doubt/.
[12] Rowland, Jeffrey. Proximity. Posted on August 16, 2010 at Overcompensating. Retrieved on August 24, 2010 from http://www.overcompensating.com/posts/20100816.html.
On Everybody Draw Mohammad Day
In Defense of Everybody Draw Mohammad Day
Today, May 20th, is Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. I thought I’d write an entry to show my support and to explain why I think this is important. This event was a response to violent actions and threats of violence against people who have drawn pictures of Mohammad in cartoons. It is an opportunity to show that we are in support of freedom of speech, even if a person says (or draws) something that is against a religious belief.
As an atheist from a Muslim family living in the USA, I’ve had the opportunity to compare religious rules and values with secular rules and values. The latter win out by a large margin. I was fortunate, because I did not grow up in an extreme family; however, there were still some things that I disagreed with in Islam. In school, I loved learning about history, especially about the many people who fought for equal rights. For a brief time, while attending an Islamic version of Sunday school once a week, I had a chance to compare what I was learning in school with some of the ideas in Sunday School. I saw that while secular values place importance on equal rights and people making their own decisions, religious values place great importance on everyone following one set of rules and living their lives exactly one way. I saw that, if I joined certain denominations of organized religion, I would be told what to do by religious leaders, not have the right to make my own decisions, and be discriminated against because I’m female.
One of the many values which make a secular outlook preferable to an extreme religious outlook is the very important idea of freedom of speech, even if it offends another person. There is no such thing as blasphemy.
In a way, I don’t completely understand the offense that some Muslims feel about this event, especially since some of the drawings are not negative at all. The first reason I don’t understand it is because, based on what I was taught in Islamic Sunday school, (correct me if I’m wrong) the reason that it is against the rules to draw Mohammad is in order to prevent idolatry; it’s a more extreme version of the Second Commandment.[1] Clearly, the people who are drawing these pictures are not worshipping them, turning them into idols. So what exactly is the big deal? The second reason I don’t understand the offense is because there are many Muslims who name their sons Mohammad (with various spellings). When someone draws a picture and labels it “Mohammad”, it could be any of these people. Well, alright, people might say that they know which Mohammad was meant, even if it was not specified. In that case, I have to ask a question. Which is more offensive to Mohammad: a drawing of Mohammad or someone named Mohammad who commits a horrible crime?
The whole point, though, is that no matter whom you are and no matter what you believe, there is someone somewhere who disagrees with you; there will be people whose views you find offensive and people who find your views offensive. Freedom of speech is for everyone, and it is time for religious people who have not realized it to understand that freedom of speech benefits them as well. The same freedom which lets one person say, “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his Prophet” allows another person to say, “Islam is false.” If we say to one person or group that their speech is not permitted, then that sets a precedent which allows other people’s speech to be censored as well. If you value your own freedom of speech, you must also allow others to have freedom of speech.
Examples of Drawings of Mohammad
I’m glad that there are so many people participating in this event. I don’t blog very often, so I still have to figure out how to include an image in a blog post.[2] I’ll settle for linking to pictures drawn by some of the bloggers whose sites I visit. Greta Christina posted a picture that she drew along with a great post explaining why it is important.[3] It is one of the few times when I think the sentence “If we don’t __________ the terrorists win” is actually appropriate. Professor PZ Myers over at Pharyngula also posted a picture along with comments displaying his usual disregard for the sensibilities of the religious.[4] EnlightningLinz at Struck By Enlightning created a fun picture that incorporates both Christianity and Islam.[5]
The Friendly Atheist (Hemant Mehta) has posted a compilation[6] of some of the pictures of Mohammad that his readers sent him, and if you follow one of the links in the entry, you can also read another entry[7] he wrote explaining why he supports drawing Mohammad. I especially like Stephen’s picture. It’s beautiful. Of special interest is the fact that one of the drawings Mehta received is from a person (identified as “Anonymous”) in Saudi Arabia. This shows that this is not an issue of people of one country vs. people of another country; it is an issue with anyone who is for freedom of speech speaking up in favor of that freedom in order to stop others from taking it away.
A Rebuttal of the Expected Response to This Event
There are those who will claim (and have claimed) that this is an example of discrimination against Muslims, but that’s not true. If someone who is not a member of a certain religion refuses to follow a rule of that religion, that’s not discrimination. Muslims are free to not follow the rules of other religions if they don’t want to, so everyone else should be free to not follow the rules of Islam if they don’t want to, and the same is true for the beliefs of any religious group.
There are, however, real examples of discrimination. There are people who don’t like people who are from a certain country or who think that everyone of a certain religion is bad. There are people who really do favor discrimination against Muslims just because they are members of a different religion, and those who try to hide their discrimination against people of other countries under fake criticism of Islam. When Muslims speak up peacefully against people who really are discriminating, I support those Muslims. Unfortunately, what happens too often with religion is that actions which are not really discrimination are called discrimination. What frustrates me is that these fake claims distract from actual discrimination, which then is either ignored or denied due to a kind of Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf effect, when people get so tired of all the fake claims that they don’t believe it when it really happens.
It is important to remember that this is not non-Muslims vs. Muslims, but rather (as I wrote above) an issue of freedom of speech. Among the people who are being hurt by religious censorship are not just the nonreligious and members of other religions, but also members of the same religion who want to speak out. There are Muslims, such as Irshad Manji, who speak about the reforms they would like to see in Islam.[8] They face hatred from some Muslims for speaking out about the problems in their own faith. There are also former Muslims, such as Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who have also faced threats of violence for speaking up about the problems in Islam.
One of the effects I hope that events such as this will have is to provide encouragement to Muslims who are being hurt by other Muslims to say something. I hope that this sets a good precedent, with people realizing that violence is not an acceptable response to peaceful speech, so that Muslims who are afraid today of speaking out about the problems in their faith can be heard without fear of violence from other Muslims. I hope that those who don’t really care if another person draws Mohammad and are more concerned about the human rights violations and discrimination that are going on will speak up about these issues, and will be able to do so in a world where any threats and violence against them are not considered acceptable.
That is why I support Everybody Draw Mohammad Day — because it is important for everyone’s freedom, regardless of their religious views.
References and Endnotes
[1] Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 5:8. Holy Bible: New International Version. Zondervan, 2005.
There are different versions of the Ten Commandments within the Bible and, apparently, different denominations of Judaism and Christianity number them differently.
[2] Once I figure it out, I may start including pictures in the future. I don’t want this entry to be late.
[3] URL of the link: http://www.gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2010/05/why-im-drawing-mohammad.html
[4] URL of the link: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05.everyone_draw_mohammed.php
[5] URL of the link: http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/draw-muhammad-day/
[6] URL of the link: http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/05/20/draw-muhammad-day-a-compilation/
[7] URL of the link: http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/05/15/why-i-support-drawing-muhammad/
[8] URL of the link: http://irshadmanji.com
Skepticon 4: 19 – 20 November 2011
The Midwest's Largest Skeptic Conference Springfield, Missouri
-
Recent Comments at The Eternal Bookshelf
Mugglenet- Emma Watson states 'Reality TV' helped her prepare for 'The Bling Ring' 2012/05/29Emma Watson is in this week's issue of Entertainment Weekly in which she described how she prepared for the role of Sofia Coppola's film The Bling Ring. Emma stated, "I just watched a ton of reality TV. I was doing an English course [at Brown University]. So I would go from reading Virginia Woolf to [watching] Kim Kardashian. I kind of loved i […]
- Mashable: MuggleNet top 'Magical Real-World Creation Inspired by Potter' 2012/05/29Earlier this week, Mashable rolled out their 5 Magical Real-World Creations Inspired by Harry Potter, and coming in at No. 2 on the list was MuggleNet! The top spot went to Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans, which you can purchase courtesy of Jelly Belly. "While not featured in the books or films, MuggleNet is an important part of the Harry Potter experie […]
- MuggleNet offering chance to cover Grand Opening of 'Harry Potter: The Exhibition' in Singapore 2012/05/29If you live in Singapore and would like a press pass to attend the Grand Opening of the Harry Potter: The Exhibition, then MuggleNet is looking for you! We will provide one press pass to a qualified Harry Potter fan, to cover and report on the Grand Opening event, which is scheduled to take place on Friday, June 1st at 2:30PM. If you feel you are able to cov […]
- MuggleNet Interactive hosts summer trivia-based Quidditch Tournament 2012/05/29The sixth annual SNITCH Quidditch Tournament begins in just under one week on MuggleNet Interactive, as the top Quidditch teams from across the world prepare to claim the prized Quidditch Trophy. If you haven't checked out Quidditch on MNI - no, it's sadly not a game of taking off from the ground on broomsticks. But there are Chasers, Beaters, Keep […]
- Pottermore Insider updates progress on 'Chamber of Secrets' 2012/05/29The Pottermore Insider was recently updated to show current progress on releasing Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets on the Interactive website. From the Insider: Chamber of Secrets update: This week, we're in the sound studio recording audio for the Chamber of Secrets Moments. We're also working on Chapter Three, The Burrow, and Chapter Seven […]
- Order your yearly subscription to Quidditch Quarterly for all your Muggle Quidditch news 2012/05/29Looking to own a piece of Muggle Quidditch history? Then order a year long subscription to the International Quidditch Association's magazine: Quidditch Quarterly. Quidditch Quarterly is the only magazine dedicated to the real-life sport of quidditch and the official publication of the International Quidditch Association. QQ is a 60-page full-color maga […]
- Olympic Quidditch teams jerseys available for purchase now - go support your country! 2012/05/29The sport of Muggle Quidditch is growing increasingly popular around the world and this has never been more evident than with the upcoming exhibition matches that are taking place at the 2012 Summer Olympic Torch Ceremony in Oxford, London this July. At this time, four countries will be represented for this incredible honor: Team UK, Team USA, Team Australia […]
- MuggleNet presents: a fan written guide to Harry Potter conventions 2012/05/29Summer is rapidy approaching, and that can mean only one thing: the time for the ever-popular Harry Potter conventions is drawing near. Our newest submission from resident editorialist hpboy13 features a comprehensive guide to attending these conventions. If you've never attenteded a Harry Potter convention before - or if you would just like to learn mo […]
- Untitled 2012/05/29This past week thousands of fans around the world picked up their copy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and rediscovered the very old magic of the book series. We watched as Harry was sorted into Gryffindor - "not Slytherin, not Slytherin!" - and then we all got a crash course in Transfiguration, where we discovered it was possible to […]
- Memorial Day Sale at WB Shop - Save up to 60% on 'Harry Potter' merchandise 2012/05/29The WB Shop has a Memorial Day savings event going on right now through Monday, May 28th, which will allow you to save up to 60% on selected items, including Harry Potter Blu-ray and DVD purchases. Some of the select items on sale include: Save $5 on All Adult Shirts Save $5 on All iPhone Cases Save 20% on Personalized Hogwarts Acceptance Letters Save 15% on […]
- Emma Watson states 'Reality TV' helped her prepare for 'The Bling Ring' 2012/05/29
