Public art protest organised by Victoria Gugenheim in solidarity with persecuted freethinkers, at the conference in London. Photo: CEMB.

In the ten years of its existence, the Council for Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) has organised annual conferences to draw attention to issues facing ex-Muslims, their status as apostates and blasphemers, the distinction between Islam and Islamism, islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism, the links with other religious fundamentalisms, and religion and women’s rights.

To mark CEMB’s tenth anniversary, the international conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression that took place in London last month was bigger and bolder than any before it. Appropriately, substantial time was devoted to the journeys and testimonies of women and men who asserted their right to live free from religion and found themselves at best forsaken by family (and that’s no easy option) and at worst risking death and imprisonment.

Whenever speakers gather from around the world I’m reminded of the truism that context is everything. At this conference, those who came from Muslim majority countries tended to be harsher in their condemnation of Islam – one even called it a “virus” – than speakers who have lived in the west where minority status, security concerns and tendencies to see all Muslims as terrorists have obliged them to tread a careful path between the religion and its politicisation.

Jimmy Bangash, a gay Pakistani living in Britain, broke with that pattern in a session called ‘Out, Loud and Proud,’ saying he struggled with the distinction between Islam and Islamism. He referenced the case of Jahed Chaudhury, the first Muslim gay man in Britain to marry, who was spat at and threatened with acid attacks by Muslims. Bangash said it was disingenuous to call this Islamism when it was simply people following Islam.

With that remark, Bangash landed on a central faultline in the conference between those who were practising, progressive Muslims and those who felt that the door marked ‘exit’ was the only option as Islam was essentially unreformable. Could these two groups of people work together in a secular alliance or do atheists and ex-Muslims feel silenced because their critique of religion is seen as offensive by some believers?
 
Could these two groups of people work together in a secular alliance or do atheists and ex-Muslims feel silenced because their critique of religion is seen as offensive by some believers?

These simmering tensions surfaced during a panel entitled ‘Secularism as a Human Right’. Chris Moos, council member of the National Secular Society, lit the fuse when he said it was not helpful to describe religious people as ‘stupid’ (in reference to comments made earlier at the conference) if you are trying to build an inclusive secular movement. He argued for more religious people to be part of campaigns for secularism, but said he feared they stayed away feeling their beliefs “were on trial”.

In her closing statement on this panel, Karima Bennoune, UN special rapporteur on cultural rights, emphasised that while the struggles of atheists are important, they are separate from those of secularists. This drew a passionate response from Maryam Namazie, founder of CEMB. Namazie said her “whole life has been bulldozed by Islam”. She expressed frustration at lacking space to say that Islam offends her, for fear of offending some of her religious sisters in a secular alliance.

Gita Sahgal, director of the Centre for Secular Space, argued from the floor that atheism got a raw deal in secular circles. She also talked passionately about the price paid by some ex-Muslims for whom “simply to pronounce their atheism was to fall into a human rights void”, losing their homes, jobs, custody of children and all their civil and social rights.

Ex-Muslims in Muslim majority countries have had to undertake dangerous journeys to becoming visible in order to find and give support to other ex-Muslims. Ex-Muslims in the west have had access to many more potential allies. But, as many speakers reiterated, finding the right allies can be a minefield. 

In another conference session, Benjamin David, editor of Conatus News, talked about the ‘regressive left’, the ‘liberal left’ and the ‘progressive left’. Later, David Silverman, president of American Atheists, delivered a high-octane, humorous presentation on ‘wrong left’ and ‘wrong right’ allies. Although talking of the American context, much of what he said applies to the UK too.

A slide from Silverman’s talk at the conference in London.Though deliberately reductionist, Silverman’s talk made some serious points. Black and minority ethnic (BME) feminists in the west, and particularly in Britain, have never received support from those who should have been their natural allies – the left – in their struggle against religious fundamentalism, particularly Islamic fundamentalism.

Silverman noted that the ‘wrong left’ believe that criticising Islam is racism, and in fact make no distinction between Islam and Islamism. He said the ‘right to not be offended’ has been gaining ground among left-liberal circles, shutting down free speech.

A recent example of this is the refusal by organisers of the Pride 2017 march in London to support Maryam Namazie and other ex-Muslims against a complaint filed by the East London Mosque which which described a CEMB placard saying “East London Mosque incites murder of LGBT” as itself “inciting hatred against Muslims”. The mosque said it had a “track record for challenging homophobia in East London”.

In a statement, Pride organisers said their community advisory board was considering whether CEMB could join the next march in 2018. “If anyone taking part in our parade makes someone feel ostracised, discriminated against or humiliated, then they are undermining and breaking the very principles on which we exist,” it said. “Pride must always be a movement of acceptance, diversity and unity. We will not tolerate Islamophobia”. (That old chestnut!)

the ‘right to not be offended’ has been gaining ground among left-liberal circles and shutting down free speech

At the London conference, Asher Fainman, president of the Goldsmiths University Atheist Society, deplored how universities had become bastions of the ‘right to not be offended’. He described an infamous incident when he invited Namazie to speak and her talk was repeatedly disrupted by students from the Islamic Society. They literally pulled the plug on her Powerpoint presentation when she showed cartoons of Jesus and Mo.

Namazie has been disinvited from talks at a number of universities on the basis that she is an Islamaphobe (a favourite tactic in shutting down criticism). At the conference, Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, said it was a tragedy that the right to free speech was increasingly associated with the right – though it is too important a right for progressive people to relinquish.

A slide from Silverman’s talk at the conference in London.I am not sure there is a ‘right right’ or what its position would be but, in Silverman’s framework, the ‘wrong right’ is racist because it posits Christianity as morally superior, therefore justifying all critiques of Islam. This position leads logically to support for ex-Muslims but this support is the kiss of death because it further alienates potential left supporters.

Silverman described the paradox that “the right doesn’t care about rape culture, homophobia or sexism unless it is in Muslim culture and we have a left that cares a lot about these things unless it is in Muslim culture. The right says Islam creates terrorists, the left says that criticising Islam creates terrorists”.

In this landscape, organisations like CEMB, Southall Black Sisters and Centre for Secular Space have been trying to occupy that lonely space where the primacy of universal rights is respected, regardless of brickbats from the left and right, of the ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ kind. Challenging religion should have no greater consequences than the crossfire of intellectual debate.

Rahila Gupta is a freelance journalist and writer. Her work has appeared in The Guardian and New Humanist among other papers and magazines. Her books include, Enslaved: The New British Slavery; From Homebreakers to Jailbreakers: Southall Black Sisters; Provoked;  and ‘Don’t Wake Me: The Ballad of Nihal Armstrong (Playdead Press, 2013). She is co-authoring a book with Beatrix Campbell with the title Why Doesn’t Patriarchy Die? Follow her on twitter @ RahilaG

This article is part two of a series on the Conference on Free Expression and Conscience, which took place in London in July 2017.

This article was first published on openDemocracy.

The post Where is the line between Islam and Islamism? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is better to be an atheist than a hypocritical Catholic, said Pope Francis during his improvised comments at his private morning Mass at his residence on Thursday, the Reuter reported.

"It is a scandal to say one thing and do another. That is a double life… "There are those who say 'I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this and that association'," the Pope said, according to a Vatican Radio transcript.

The head of the 1.2 billion strong Roman Catholic Church added that some of these people should also say "'my life is not Christian, I don't pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, (I lead) a double life'."

"There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal," he said. "How many times have we all heard people say 'if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist'."

Since his election in 2013, Francis has often told Catholics, both priests and lay people, to practice what their religion preaches.

In his often impromptu sermons, he has condemned sexual abuse of children by priests as being tantamount to a "Satanic Mass", said Catholics in the mafia excommunicate themselves, and told his own cardinals to not act as if they were "princes".

Less than two months after his election, he said Christians should see atheists as good people if they do good.

The unconventional Pope has often spoken empathetically about the gay community, exploited women and children, the arms industry: "I believe the church should apologise not only to the person who is gay whom it has offended, but has to apologise to the poor, to exploited women, to children exploited for labour; it has to ask forgiveness for having blessed many weapons".

The post It is better to be an atheist than a hypocritical Catholic: Pope Francis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: AFP

Very soon after Professor Rezaul Karim Siddque of Rajshahi Univeristy was hacked to death in the morning of April 23, 2016, I wrote my feelings, my frustrations, my concerns and my fears. From all the information we received, Professor Karim appeared to be a quiet man, a man who was of a peaceful nature, a lover of music and a committed teacher. As is the case with most Bangalis, he loved music. Cultural activities were in his bloodstream. He tried to, or did set up a cultural hub in his home, where he lived, not too far from the University where he taught.

He was not a declared atheist, nor a blogger, not even an armchair or facebook activist. Not one of the usual argumentative Bangalis, the usual picture of the intellectual. Not one of those who were in the frontlines of activism, not a talk show star, not one who wrote long opinions and editorials about the state of affairs of the country.  Why would he be killed?

We read from the reports that we get from all the different forms of media that exists, that he was what I often describe as the typical example of a citizen of this land, the kind of people I grew up with, secular in his thinking by encouraging culture, music, playing his favourite sitar, reading books, yet sensitive and responsive to the practice of religion of the people he lived amongst, his family perhaps, certainly his neighbours. We heard of his large donations to the building of the local mosque as a proof of this perception. His daughter has been very vehement in stating that he was a believer. 

I find it very telling on our current state of affairs that we have to insist that we are all believers. Why should it matter? A murder is a murder and a gruesome murder has to be taken in all seriousness no matter what one’s beliefs are or where one stands.

I find it very telling on our current state of affairs that we have to insist that we are all believers. Why should it matter? A murder is a murder and a gruesome murder has to be taken in all seriousness no matter what one’s beliefs are or where one stands. We all grew up learning to sing, dance, play an instrument, and write poetry, recite etc. Where else do we find that recitation is considered a part of cultural practice, a part of the performing arts? Was his fault that he embodied this very nature of the Bangali? Was he murdered so brutally simply to be used as an example of what not to be? Was he simply targeted because he embodied the very spirit of 1952, of 1971 in the quiet nature of his being?

The message that appears to come out is that it is perfectly alright to machete and hack to death an atheist, because she/he questions the very basis and beliefs of a believer. That a believer only implies not just one religion Islam, but also does not allow all the different schools/mazhabs, sects, trends within Islam to continue to exist.

No sooner than this murder shocked us, we heard of the brutal killing on the evening of April 25, of Xulhaz Mannan and Mahbub Rabbi Tonoy at Xulhaz’s house at Kalabagan, a crowded locality in central Dhaka. Xulhaz was very well known in the activists’ community. He co-founded the LGBT magazine, Roopban which tried to bring forth many issues and concerns along with talking about the rights of Bangladesh’s Gay community. People were in tears when I called to find out and be sure. I had not seen such a reaction before amongst a varied and large range of people from so many ages and walks of life, people who normally do not associate with each other. These were people he interacted with or touched, through his gentle nature in wanting a multicultural and diverse Bangladesh. A Bangladesh that would allow all people, of all faiths, beliefs, orientation, identities and occupations to live and flourish without fear.

He was truly fearless, he never felt threatened nor did he feel the need to leave his country, not continue to do what he believed. He had the option, which he never thought of using. He took responsibility to care for his frail and ailing mother, in front of whom he was brutally killed. How would he give others the strength, if he was not with them, if he left?  At least that is what I have been told by all who knew him well, that is what I felt in the little interactions I have had with him.

I last spoke to him on Pohela Boishakh when I heard four gay people had been held at the Shahbagh Thana. I had asked if he needed me. He was quite clear he could handle it and said that they would be released soon. That was the last I spoke to him. His friend Tonoy was a theatre activist.  Both could instill in people confidence and courage, what many people who are marginalised always experience as insecurities, but through their talk, instead they succeeded in giving them a feeling of strength and a sense of faith in themselves as they are, as they wish to be. Many spoke to me yesterday and today, how these two young men managed to dispel the idea of living in constant fear after they spoke to each person who felt threatened.  So why should they get killed?  They were not hurting anyone, they were not using any kind of coercion or violence to force their position on others?  On the contrary they tried to let everyone have the chance to express their views.   

Xulhaz’s house was a haven for people who felt the need to be comforted, to feel strong, to feel wanted.   Neither of the two very recent incidents where such gentle people were killed showed that those killed ever thought that one has to use machetes, knives, daggers, guns to spread an ideology or a belief or a life style, to express one’s rights as a citizen, to instill fear through force and venom, to take away lives to perpetuate a belief?  Surely no rational or intelligent person can ever believe that it is only through fear and force that ideology could be established and followed.  That analysis is so flawed it is beyond comprehension.  But, unfortunately in the name of ideology, in the name of religion, this is sanctioned. How contradictory can one get?  Either passively or tacitly by not acting or by deliberately pandering to this kind of action, by giving into the fear factor or by being brain washed, this kind of violence and intolerance is exactly what is being propagated.

Those feeling outraged at this barbarism are asked that one should be careful not to hurt the sentiment of the believers? Whose sentiment are we talking about? Which believers? The misogynists,  communalists who preach and breed obscurantism, a group financially strong, having the backing of the powers that be, misrepresenting and misquoting for their own vested interests.

The list of people killed during this last almost seventeen months is long. We have no idea of how long or how fast will this situation spread all over the country, before it can be stopped? Of course the question asked time and again, can we see signs that there are serious intentions to stop this?  The confusing and sometimes contradictory statements given by those in the Government certainly do not give any sense that the Government has any intention to act to suppress this.  In fact their statements are often to the contrary and seem to be given to appease the killers.  It is randomly and broadly stated that it is the bloggers who are attacked, and that all bloggers are atheists. I think it is time to stop this over simplification.  Why do people think that being an atheist is dangerous, not to be tolerated?  Just as having a religion, whatever the religion may be, either Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Jains, etc. is very normal and acceptable, similarly not having a religion or a religious belief is not an agenda either.  It is an individual’s decision.

This is not the Bangladesh we know. We are not mentioning any general murders, rapes, sexual harassment of women in public celebrations, extra judicial killings etc.  The purpose of this piece is to mention killings in the name of ‘Religion’. What is interesting to note that in most cases the modus operandi is uncannily similar.  What is also similar is the non action in bringing to book or even finding out the perpetrators. Our government says these are isolated incidents; next day we get the report that all those who have been involved in killings have been caught. 

We know that one of the killers of Oyasequr Rahman Babu was caught but later released and we see the CCTV camera video footage of police catching and yet unable to hold on to another killer in the recent incident.  Apparently the killers were armed!  Of course they were, remember they killed two people and injured two others?  On the other hand our law enforcers are happily killing people in encounters ever so often.  The contradictions in each statement given are so weak.  They really need a better script writer.

As a woman, a feminist, as a rationalist, who believes in democracy, freedom of speech and thought, in equality in all fields specially one’s mind and thinking, freedom and security of one’s movement and the right to our basic needs including that of sharpening our intellect through knowledge and culture, I will speak out.

I would like to mention here some facts.  First, not all those killed were bloggers, and those being killed now are neither necessarily bloggers nor atheists.  Secondly, not all bloggers are atheists, nor all those active in social media are bloggers or atheists. They may or may not be, that is irrelevant. Thirdly, I had no idea, and please those who know do know, inform me under which article of the Constitution is it stated that no one can be an atheist in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.  

The message that appears to come out is that it is perfectly alright to machete and hack to death an atheist, because she/he questions the very basis and beliefs of a believer. That one need not go through the legally accepted and established legal forum, the laws of the land or the Judiciary, nor does one need to be taken to Court. That a believer only implies not just one religion Islam, but also does not allow all the different schools/mazhabs, sects, trends within Islam to continue to exist. Islam has been practiced in what is now Bangladesh as the religion of a majority which came through the preaching of very religious and spiritual leaders, hence the influence of the Sufi Culture.  Not through the sword, definitely not through imparting fear and/or force.

The message that there is only one form, a form alien to this land, of belief and practice, that of the Wahabi/Salafis who are not part of the 4 Mazhabs of the Islamic Sunni belief is now being pushed with full force as the current agenda.  This is a global phenomenon, not just here.  It is not relevant as to whether our Government accepts that Islamic State exists in name here in Bangladesh.  They may be called Mujahideens, Talibans, Al-Qaeda, Hefazat e Islam, Harkat ul Jihad, JMB, or whatever name they wish to call themselves.  The process of force, violence, falsehoods, and murders to create fear in order to establish their State is essentially the same.  What is crucial in all this is that women will never be full citizens with equal rights.  We cannot allow ourselves to go backwards from what we have so valiantly fought for, for what we have achieved.

I write this since many people killed in this brutal manner have been believers, Pirs,  Shias, Ahmedias, followers of the Sufi tradition, priests from other religions, writers who were not necessarily atheists, or at least have never openly stated their position as being such, even expatriate residents who came to work and live in Bangladesh. People who love music, people who are young, middle aged, old, anything or anyone without any apparent basis or rationale may be killed. Believers, non believers all have been targeted in order to gain control to establish that there is only one acceptable form of Islam.

Those feeling outraged at this barbarism are asked that one should be careful not to hurt the sentiment of the believers? Whose sentiment are we talking about? Which believers? The misogynists,  communalists who preach and breed obscurantism, a group financially strong, having the backing of the powers that be, misrepresenting and misquoting for their own vested interests, building upon the lack of knowledge of the vast majority of people, in the name of religion, a completely false base? Why are these groups allowed to operate? In whose interests are they doing so? It is time to link up this obscurantist, misogynist ideologies, whether in our country or using the name of another religion in another land, and to analyse whose interests do they really serve? There does not seem to be any contradiction between great profit making interests such as the drug, arms, smuggling, trafficking and sex industry and these bigots.

Islam, and I mention Islam here since that is the religion of at present over 90% of the people of this land, existed in this country for centuries, without the current trend of extreme violence and fear (if I were in India or in Europe or North America, I would mention the majority religion, used as a political tool in those countries too) We do not need a new and alien form of Islam in this country, or any form of religious indoctrination for that matter. As a secular state we are supposed to believe in the separation of Religion and State. 

Are we, those that are either at the helm of affairs or claim to have some influence over policy and thinking, at all concerned that the numbers of people who have a different faith or viewpoint are decreasing? That non-Muslims are currently around only 9% of the population?  Whereas, in 1951 non-Muslims were 23%, which then came down to 14.6% in 1974.  Just as a country needs Democracy, a country needs Diversity in all its various forms. Killing of protestors fighting for their right to their land and home against coal fired power plants, the Tazreen, Rana Plaza and other industrial tragedies, attacks on non Muslims, Indigenous peoples, Women, are all part of the same trend; a trend towards the establishment of a controlled mono-culture, whether of production systems, market controls, or a mono-culture of the mind, through ideology and culture.

Is it not now the time to speak out? To fill in the blanks, make the links?

As a woman, a feminist, as a rationalist, who believes in democracy, freedom of speech and thought, in equality in all fields specially one’s mind and thinking, freedom and security of one’s movement and the right to our basic needs including that of sharpening our intellect through knowledge and culture, I will speak out. My mind is my own, it belongs only to me, free to move where it wishes to go and free to dream its own dreams and free to express myself. I do not hurt others ideology or beliefs, just as I do not allow others to hurt mine. I am strong in my belief, because it is mine as I have come to understand it.

My belief, my ideology, is not so feeble that just because someone does not share my ideology, my ideology becomes insecure and shaky.  1971 has taught us that killing cannot stop freedom. It did not then, it will not now.

This article was first published on Kafila.org.
 

The post Bangla Activist: “1971 has taught us that killing cannot stop freedom” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Is ISIS about Islam or about geopolitics? Or both?

Is ISIS all about Islam, or about geopolitics? This dualism has framed the debate about ISIS among Western analysts, especially American ones. They have formed two camps, one sees in ISIS and its practices an irrefutable evidence of the “true face of Islam”; another insists that ISIS has nothing to do with “real Islam” and reduces it to a telltale backlash against imperialism and Western policies in the Middle East and North Africa (hitherto MENA). This dichotomous approach is one of a few angles through which ISIS has been dissected and analyzed in the United States,[i] but it has more significance than others because it is more common and involves high profile American polemicists, activists and intellectuals who have shaped the contours of this debate. Yet both camps of the ISIS debate, we argue, evoke Orientalism as a discourse that privileges Western knowledge of the East and sidelines or patronizes voices from the MENA region. Their concerns are Eurocentric, revolving around Islamophobia, with the first camp promoting it and the second fearing and battling it, thus turning the ISIS debate into one about the West and its own battles and polemics.

This piece aims to deconstruct the polarized analysis of ISIS as either political or religious, either sacred or worldly, and suggests that, in fact, it could be both. By shedding light on some of the intensive debates raging in MENA concerning ISIS, we argue that ISIS is both a product of MENA’s politics, both local and foreign, and a symptom of a specific religious culture that reflects current developments, clashes and debates within the abode of Islam. These derive their potency from a legitimacy crisis within a fragmented Sunni authority since the collapse of the Ottoman state, rising sectarian politics, and amateur literal interpretation of religious texts, etc. All are major concerns threatening the MENA region and beyond, and with which Arab and Muslim scholars, intellectuals, politicians and activists in MENA have been deeply engaged. To invoke these modern historical crises is not meant to render the rise of ISIS inevitable or self-evident but dismissing them and the debates in MENA about them is dangerous and shortsighted, and has led to the polarized impasse in the West on how to understand the rise of ISIS. It is time we move away from religious and geopolitical essentialisms, and take seriously MENA’s contested intellectual and political ground on which ISIS has been operating.

Thus, the purpose here is not to devise the endgame of the ISIS debate, declaring whether ISIS is more about politics or about religion, especially as the debate has unfolded in the West. ISIS, we contend, does not only exist to pander to its opponents of different forms and shapes both inside and outside MENA, but is also made, unmade and constructed by Arabs and Muslims in relationship to Islamic history, Islamic theology and regional politics, altogether.

The Double-Edged Sword of Orientalism
As aforementioned, the analysis of ISIS in the United States has mostly pursued simplified schema (is ISIS political or religious?), with analysts sharply divided between two opposite camps. One, fixated on ISIS as a religious phenomenon, uses ISIS to bash Islam and Muslims, intentionally overlooking the fact that a poll after another show the unpopularity of ISIS among Arabs and Muslims.[ii] This camp reduces the complexities of MENA’s politics to pure religious and cultural factors while overlooking the wider context in which such violent movements emerge. Worst, it adopts “a holier than thou” attitude, ignoring not only the West’ s own history of violence but also the West’s current practices of violence (or complicity in such practices) around the world, not least in MENA. This camp’s knowledge of MENA societies is very remote, superficial and impressionist at best. Its crudest articulations come from right wing pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter et al who are best described as Islamophobes whose rhetoric is rooted in racism, intolerance and prejudice, rather than in a desire for open discussion. Not to underestimate or disregard their influence, we seek to open a discussion which transcends these limitations. Neither does it aim to engage with the New Atheist movement, another group within this camp. Championed by the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others, this movement has been particularly hostile to Islam and Muslims after 9/11. Harris’ statement that “Islam right now is the mother lode of bad ideas,” and Dawkins’ characterization of Islam as “the greatest force of evil today,” are products of Orientalist thinking in the Saidian sense. At their worst, the New Atheists, with their cultural supremacy and patronizing language, disguise an imperialist chauvinism. Asef Bayat qualifies this type of knowledge production in the West about the Muslim Middle East in particular as “neo-Orientalism,’” describing it as “more entrenched, multi-faceted, and harmful than its predecessor; it has fed into what is currently called ‘Islamophobia’.”

Not to acknowledge the presence of theology is not only an exercise in self-denial; it is also an outright dismissal of ISIS’ victims who are enslaved, maimed, tortured and executed, all in the name of the theology – as particular or extreme as it may be — that ISIS adopts
 
The other camp, alarmed by rising Islamophobia in the West and its poisonous and divisive rhetoric, sidelines Islam and the religious culture altogether from the discussion, foregrounding instead the analysis almost exclusively in MENA’s politics and economics, and in the Western powers’ foreign policies in the region. This camp is characterized by deeper knowledge of MENA’s history and societies and the complex nature of its contemporary politics. It consists of academics, journalists and online activists, both Muslims and non-Muslims. Yet this camp falls short of capturing all sides of the story informing the making of ISIS and does not cut deep enough into the various religious and intellectual milieus brewing in MENA. This can be due to ideological positions dismissing the significance and importance of religious worldviews, or to limited or partial experiences with the daily realities of MENA’s societies, or simply to lack of access to the different forms of local production of knowledge. Yet perhaps the main reason this camp is adamant about negating any connection between Islam and ISIS is the fear of pandering to Islamophobes. From that perspective, this camp risks practicing its own form of Orientalism in the way it discusses ISIS not so much as a problem in MENA but one about the West, its concerns, and internal politics. It speaks as an “authority” on the subject while overlooking voices and opinions from MENA that better represent the realities on the ground and offer a more critical analysis of ISIS that goes beyond the geopolitical dimensions. In sidelining such voices, this camp is denying the interiority that MENA’s intellectuals and scholars provide and is also painting a homogenous picture of MENA’s intellectual landscape, suppressing the variety and diversity of opinions and different levels of engagement in the region.

A good example of this camp’s narrative remains the debate that followed the March 2015 publication of the Atlantic article “What ISIS Really wants.” The article itself, with its generalizations and analytical shortcomings, suffers from crude Orientalism. For example, the author’s statement that “the religion preached by [IS]’ ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam,” is extremely flawed as it does not allow for different qualities of Islamic thought. To the contrary, ISIS’ interpretations are neither coherent nor learned, fall outside of juristic consensus and betray historical precedents. The author’s emphasis on ISIS’ “medieval religious nature” fails to see the complicity of modernity and modern institutions in the creation of phenomena like ISIS. But this article also revealed the shortsightedness of American critical commentary in general. The author, while acknowledging that nearly all Muslims reject the Islamic State, warns not to pretend “that [ISIS] isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted.” This characterization of ISIS as a religious group with a theology drew fierce criticism and raised the ire of many analysts, especially in the United States. Among those was the Iranian-American scholar Hamid Dabashi at Columbia University. His rebuttal best showcases this camp’s well-intended yet misleading and flawed analysis, and best captures how the IS debate in the West is not really about ISIS per se and MENA’s daily realities; it is more about the West’s internal politics and its own forms of knowledge production regarding MENA. Dabashi asked: “What utter stupidity might cause a person to ignore the world in which we live, and in which we have lived, and engage in the mind-numbing banality of searching for a ‘theology’ for the IS group?”[iii] That theology would even be considered as part of the identity and overall ideology of ISIS is an affront to him; it is dismissed out of hand. Surely, theology is not the main or only drive behind ISIS, but denying its existence denies reality. Regardless of the regional and foreign politics shaping the emergence of ISIS, ISIS defines itself in religious terms, it vies for and fiercely rivals other groups over religiously sanctioned authority, and dutifully and conscientiously anchors itself and its vision in religious texts. ISIS’ worldview, even if cultic, is a religiously-informed one par excellence while at the same time ISIS remains, first and foremost, a political organization with political goals. Not to acknowledge the presence of theology is not only an exercise in self-denial; it is also an outright dismissal of ISIS’ victims who are enslaved, maimed, tortured and executed, all in the name of the theology – as particular or extreme as it may be — that ISIS adopts. Dabashi’s refutation was purely reactionary, lacking engagement and insight. It seems he wanted to deny ISIS a theology to challenge the Islamophobes nodding approvingly,  for their own sinister goals, at the Atlantic article.

ISIS and the Debate Within
To be sure, one can find parallel narratives in MENA to those in the West, insofar as they emphasize the political or the religious. While there is no shortage of voices in MENA that argue, not unlike many analysts in the West, that ISIS does not represent Islam, a closer look at the debates about ISIS among intellectuals in MENA reveals richer discussions that do not neatly fit the analytical categories of the political and the religious, the modern and the medieval produced in the West. They offer more self-critical analyses than, say, an official –and largely discredited- institution like al-Azhar does, and do not shy away from questioning the essence of the religious worldview informing ISIS and the significance of certain religious texts and interpretations –regardless of any lack of consensus around them– in shaping groups such as ISIS.

Some of those critics belong to religious establishments but most of them do not; some of them are wedded, personally, to a religious worldview while others not necessarily so. Yet they all draw on discussions and terminology deeply engrained in Islamic history, jurisprudence and theology. They include Adonis, Sa‘d bin Tifla al-‘Ajami, al-Tahir Amin, Aziz al-Azmeh, Khalid Ghazal, Hasan Hanafi, Rosa Yasin Hasan, Ibtihal al-Khatib, ‘Amir Muhsin, Muhammad Shahrour, Sayyid al-Qumani, and others. The periodical Al-Awan alone, edited by George Tarabishi, has a whole slate of articles by Arab intellectuals dissecting the theological underpinnings of ISIS.

For these critics, theology is foundational to ISIS (as ISIS itself professes it to be) rather than decorative, thus continuing historically informed debates among Muslims regarding the tension between `aql (reason) and naql (transmission of knowledge), between a literal and an analytical interpretation of religious texts, and the influence of Wahhabism and proto-Salafi movements on contemporary Muslim societies. None of those analysts ignores or dismisses the impact of political and economic factors on the emergence of political violence in MENA, currently most strikingly embodied by ISIS, but they have no qualms identifying and criticizing the theology driving ISIS’ vision, and the religious culture that shapes and informs its acts, policies and behavior. Their analysis is built on the intertwining of politics and theology, not their dualism.

The arguments the authors make are not ad hoc or new. They are weighing in on a wider and older discussion concerning the authority of the religious text in Islam, the heavy weight of the religious heritage in the present, and the dangerous intertwining of religion and politics in Islam. While they may differ one from the other on some details, they are taking part in ongoing discussions about Islam and politics in MENA since the fall of the Ottoman order. One can trace a genealogy of this critical thought to the early history of Islam. But in more practical and pertinent terms, one can start with ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq (d. 1966) and his book al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm (Islam and the Foundations of Governance), in which he refuted the idea of religious governance in Islam. This chain of reformist thought includes many, such as ‘Abd Allah al-‘Alayli (d. 1996), Nasr Hamid Abi Zayd (d. 2010), Muhammad Arkoun (d. 2010), Jamal al-Banna (d. 2013), Muhammad ‘Abid al-Jabiri (d. 2010), Nawal al-Sa‘dawi, and many others, Islamists or seculars, who have criticized both the sacredness with which the religious heritage is held and the dangerous implications of a theology tangled with politics. An acknowledgment of the current criticism by Arab authors of the theological underpinnings of ISIS should be seen as a tribute to a long-standing reformist thought indigenous to MENA and concerned about the region’s present and future.

ISIS is both a product of MENA’s politics, both local and foreign, and a symptom of a specific religious culture that reflects current developments, clashes and debates within the abode of Islam. These derive their potency from a legitimacy crisis within a fragmented Sunni authority since the collapse of the Ottoman state, rising sectarian politics, and amateur literal interpretation of religious texts, etc.

MENA societies are too diverse for one or more groups to represent them, and their opinions too varied and too variable to be captured by one view or the other, by one writer or another. Therefore measuring the influence as well as the level of representation of those critical voices is a futile exercise. But what those debates and opinions reveal is a diverse and rich discussion of contemporary Islam and Muslim societies that defies the homogenous image of MENA portrayed by some of those who speak on behalf of the region in the West and that reflects Western concerns rather than local ones. Moreover, such a consideration betrays a critical analysis of MENA’s intellectual landscape at a time of colossal crisis in the region and preempts the desperate need for an appreciation of critical thought in MENA. In fact, ignoring or dismissing those voices not only undermines the scale of the crisis –and the reactions to it – within the abode of Islam but also perpetuates an Orientalist view of Muslim societies as static, apathetic and lethargic, as if lacking in a critical intellectual tradition that can engage contemporary problems in contemporary terms. By paying attention to what intellectuals in MENA are saying about ISIS, scholars and commentators in the West can develop a far superior framework for understanding and engaging ISIS than the two camps have managed.

[A longer version of this article will appear as a co-authored chapter by Amal Ghazal and Larbi Sadiki, in The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Middle-Eastern and North African History, edited by Amal Ghazal and Jens Hanssen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).]

(This article was first published by Jadaliyya ezine)

[i] One distinctive angle, mostly revealed on the pages of The New Yorker and The Guardian, has viewed IS through the visceral and personalized lens of families in the West impacted by IS and its propaganda of a utopian/dystopian idealism. This discussion is not focused on Orientalist representations or geopolitical metrics but on the real threat posed by IS as an actual organization. See, for example, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/06/five-hostages; http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/01/journey-to-jihad and http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-happens-to-former-isis-fighters; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/isis-islamic-state-mothers-for-life
[ii] Even the Washington Institute for Near East Policy acknowledged that fact: http://fikraforum.org/?p=5608.
 

The post Nature of the beast appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Defending atheists: The most stigmatised community in America

Amid western atheist tells of sitting in her lunchroom at work and listening as conversation opened up around her about religious differences. Her co-workers included several kinds of Protestants, a Catholic, even a Jew. Sensing they were in risky territory, they worked to find common ground. "At least there aren’t any atheists around here," one woman said in a warm, inclusive tone.

What’s a girl to do in a situation like that? Should she out herself or just keep quiet? In his seminal book, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, sociologist Erving Goffman posed the perennial quandary of stigmatised persons: "To display or not display; to tell or not to tell; to let on or not to let on; to lie or not to lie; and in each case, to whom, how, when and where" (p. 42).

Disclosure feels risky because it is. In 2008 Atheist Nexus gathered "coming out" stories from over 8,000 visitors who described themselves as atheist, humanist, freethinker, agnostic, sceptic and so forth. Some of the tales are painful to read. One woman said: "I’ve had people literally, physically back away from me upon hearing I am atheist. My children were told to run away from our evil home." A man’s confession of lost faith almost cost his marriage: "My wife told me that I’m caught in Satan’s grip and confessed that after I de-converted, she considered leaving me. I believe the only reason she didn’t is because she’s financially dependent on me." Elsewhere a young woman tells of losing 34 Facebook friends when she announced her lack of belief.

The consequences of anti-atheist stigma are public as well as private. Most self-described atheists are acutely aware of survey results showing that US atheists are less electable than reviled minorities, including Muslims and gays. Six states (in the US) still have laws on the books that ban non-believers from holding public office. A Florida minister whose de-conversion recently made national news said that job interviews were cancelled when prospective employers found out.

In the minds of many believers, atheism is linked with immorality and despite mounds of evidence to the contrary, religious leaders reinforce this stereotype. I once attended a Palm Sunday service at a popular Calvinist megachurch in Seattle. The minister was determined that his congregation should believe the resurrection of Christ to be a physical, historical event. He said: "If the resurrection didn’t literally happen, there is no reason for us to be here. If the resurrection didn’t literally happen, there are parties to be had. There are women to be had. There are guns to shoot. There are people to shoot." I found myself thinking: if the only thing that stands between you and debauchery, lechery and violence is a belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus, I’m really glad you believe that. But what are you saying about the rest of us?!

Anti-atheist stereotypes work to bond believers together in part because many Americans think that they have never met an atheist. A stigmatised minority can be the nameless, faceless "other" that people love to hate as long as members remain nameless and faceless. But as the gay rights movement has shown, things get more complicated – and attitudes start changing – when we realise we are talking about our friends, beloved family members and co-workers. Coming out has been such a powerful change agent for gays that atheists (along with other faceless groups like Mormons and women who have had abortions) are explicitly taking a page from the gay rights movement and launching visibility campaigns.

That is easier than it sounds. Among atheist and humanist leaders, passionate disagreements have erupted about what kind of visibility will actually help advance acceptance and rights for those who eschew supernaturalism. 

As a social cause rather than just a life stance, atheism was catapulted forward by 9/11 and the ascendancy of the religious right. Cognitive scientist Sam Harris says that he began writing The End of Faith the morning after seeing the trade towers bombed with jet fuel and airline passengers. Biologist Richard Dawkins, who had previously hosted a gracious series of televised interviews exploring faith and non-faith, shifted tone and became a patriarch of antitheistic activism. Journalist Christopher Hitchens wrote his scathing indictment, God Is Not Great. Doubters started coming out of the closet. I myself began publicly challenging evangelical Christian teachings when George Bush pointed to heaven to indicate where he had sought advice before invading Iraq.

It takes energy and guts to buck taboos and norms as strong as those surrounding religion and so the first out the door were antitheists who felt so strongly that they were willing to throw themselves into the fray, do or die. The "New Atheists" attracted a preponderance of young males who largely fit godless stereotypes: some defiant, some nerdy, many hyper-intellectual. All were, for one reason or another, either impervious to rules protecting faith from criticism or willing to pay a price for breaking those rules. 

Some of these firebrands can be counted among today’s leaders and many have kept an edge that is honed by the seemingly relentless assaults on science and civil rights perpetrated by Christian and Muslim fundamentalists. They remain fiercely defiant, unapologetic about their scorn for religion, willing to use shock tactics if that’s what it takes to break what they see as a terminal religious stranglehold on society. Several years back, a group called the Rational Response Squad promoted a "blasphemy challenge" urging people to videotape themselves denying the holy spirit because one Bible writer calls such blasphemy an unforgivable sin. In 2010 a Seattle cartoonist launched "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" after learning about death threats against Trey Parker and Matt Stone for depicting Muhammad in (the animated TV series) South Park. This winter, American Atheists provoked quite an outcry with a billboard that quoted a Bible verse: "Slaves Submit to Your Masters – Colossians 3:22". 

The organisers of these irreverent events see them as advancing values that they cherish deeply – perhaps one could say values they hold sacred: freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom from cruelty grounded in dogma or superstition. And yet criticism of such in-your-face attacks on religion has often come from people who share their goals. As the atheist visibility movement has expanded, quieter, more diplomatic leaders have emerged. Many of them insist that aggressive confrontation does more harm than good – that atheists need to be changing stereotypes, not reinforcing them and that there is such a thing as bad publicity.

Biologist PZ Myers and Harvard Humanist chaplain Greg Epstein have staked out two very different positions in the naughty-or-nice controversy. Myers writes a popular blog, Pharyngula, which evolved from a primary focus on biology and politics to include broad-based uncensored anti-religious news and commentary. Myers doesn’t suffer fools lightly and makes no bones about letting people know that he finds most religion not only destructive but also stupid. Epstein, by contrast, seeks to build ethical and spiritual community that builds bridges between faith and non-faith. His Humanist Community Project encourages humanists to develop the traditional virtues of religion: communities built around shared values and social service. Where Myers might rail against "faith in faith", Epstein’s colleagues find common ground with open, inclusive religious groups like the Interfaith Youth Core.

The consequences of anti-atheist stigma are public as well as private. Survey results show that US atheists are less electable than reviled minorities, including Muslims and gays. Six states in the US still have laws on the books that ban non-believers from holding public office

Blogger Greta Christina has said that atheists should "let firebrands be firebrands and diplomats be diplomats". She argues that both confrontational and collaborative tactics made the gay rights movement stronger and will do the same for non-theism. But what kind of confrontation? Ugly partisanship can backfire. For example, Fred Phelps and Sean Harris give homophobia such a vile face that they trigger disgust, pushing people in the opposite direction. Some atheist activism may do the same.

Even reasonable confrontation tactics can backfire – especially in the hands of a hostile journalist. Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today attended the April Reason Rally in DC, a gathering she described as "hell-bent on damning religion and mocking beliefs". There she found plenty which, when taken out of context, could be used to reinforce stereotypes. Her article headlined with a quote from Richard Dawkins encouraging non-believers to "show contempt" for baseless dogmas. It was accompanied by a picture of Jen McCreight (of the Secular Student Alliance) cheerfully carrying a sign that read: "Obama isn’t trying to destroy religion… I am". Other speakers were depicted as ornery, offensive and more than a little scary. 

Ad campaigns by non-theist organisations reflect a struggle to find messages that connect with either teetering believers or closeted sceptics while avoiding backlash. In 2009 a London publicity campaign went viral internationally with bus ads proclaiming: "There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". A variety of billboard campaigns have followed, some more provocative than others: "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"; "You Know It’s a Myth. Solstice is the Reason for the Season"; "In the Beginning Man Created God"; "We are all Atheists about Most Gods; Some of Us Just Go One God Further"; "Don’t Believe in God? Join the Club". All have drawn protests or vandalism from indignant theists.

It may be almost impossible to avoid causing offence while challenging the religious status quo. Non-theist organisations have traditionally ignored communities of colour but African Americans for Humanism recently launched an outreach campaign with the tag line: "Doubts about religion? You’re one of many". Billboards and posters show faces of familiar black leaders as well as ordinary group members. Coalition of Reason organiser, Alix Jules of Dallas says that even this understated approach is plenty controversial for two reasons: Almost 90 per cent of African Americans express certainty about the existence of god and honouring religion is seen as a matter of loyalty.

In Halifax, Nova Scotia, Humanist Canada wanted to run a bus campaign that said, simply: "You Can Be Good Without God". But the public bus agency refused the ads because they "could be too controversial and upsetting to people". One reader commented: "I think we should make atheist ads as innocent and non-confrontational as possible. Not because we should avoid controversy but because we will get the controversy no matter what we put up and the kinder and gentler our message, the more obvious the hypocrisy of our critics. I’m hard put to think of one more innocent than this one, though."

Humanist blogger and speaker James Croft, a doctoral student of educational philosophy at Harvard, insists that it can be done: "There are ways of conveying our values that are both strong and civil, which avoid insults and (except in certain cases) ridicule without giving one inch of ground on the battlefield of our core values. All the evidence shows that this hybrid approach is more effective than simply seeking to be likeable or relying on confrontation alone."

In their effort to find the balance that Croft calls "strong and civil", the Freedom From Religion Foundation has moved towards more personal messages, ones that offer a glimpse into a godless individual (or family) rather than some form of universal claim. Since 2007, they have purchased billboard space for messages, including "Imagine No Religion", "Beware of Dogma" and "Praise Darwin: Evolve Beyond Belief". But their latest campaign, "Out of the Closet", puts real names and faces together with simple statements of values or disbelief: "Atheists work to make this life heavenly," says Dr Stephen Uhl of Tucson on one sign. "Compassion is my religion," says Olivia Chen, a Columbus student who appears on another. A recent campaign in Clarksville, Tennessee, merely shows a young woman identified as Grace beside the words: "This is what an atheist looks like".

Atheist visibility is more than ad campaigns. In 2009 psychologist Dale McGowan, editor of Parenting Beyond Belief, launched the Foundation Beyond Belief, a tool that lets the non-religious visibly contribute to non-profits working on education, health, human rights and the environment. Last year the foundation added a donation category called "Challenge the Gap" that builds bridges by contributing to the work of religious groups with shared values. Hemant Mehta of the Friendly Atheist hosts news and commentary of interest to young non-believers – absent the edge that characterises an earlier generation of blogs. He brings more humour than anger when he talks with secular student groups about outreach. Small local groups are doing their part. Seattle Atheists dress as pirates and carry a Flying Spaghetti Monster in summer parades. But they also participate in food drives and blood drives. They hand out water during an annual marathon. The aim is not only to make themselves more visible but to show that they too are compassionate members of the community of humankind.

As non-believers gain recognition as normal and ethical members of society, I think we will find that confrontation diminishes and bridge building grows. It is not only that both are necessary but that one paves the way for the other. The Stonewall riots and San Francisco drag scene laid the foundation for Feather Boa Fathers and It Gets Better and pride parades that include local businesses and church banners. Early feminists who stayed defiant even when beaten and jailed made way for the apple-pie tactics of MomsRising which has stencilled messages on onesies and delivered cookies to congressmen to get their equal pay message across. In the words of Ecclesiastes, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven." The questions are in each case, to whom, how, when and where.

Greta Christina has estimated that atheist visibility is about 35 years behind the gay rights movement. That sounds close. We will have caught up when a majority of Americans know they know a non-theist – and that friends, family members and fellow citizens really can be good without god.

This article was published in the online magazine AlterNet on May 4, 2012. www.alternet.org

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2012. Year 18, No.166 – Cover Story
 

The post Beware Of Dogma appeared first on SabrangIndia.

An empirical study on the New Atheist movement and its consequences

In 1963 the sociologist Erving Goffman published a book that has become part of the canon in social psychology, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, in which he defined stigma as "an attribute that is deeply discrediting". Those who are stigmatised are "reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one". Further, "sometimes it [stigma] is also called a failing, a shortcoming, a handicap" and that in extreme cases, a stigmatised person is "bad, dangerous or weak".¹ Then there is the issue of "coming out": "To display or not display; to tell or not to tell; to let on or not to let on; to lie or not to lie; and in each case, to whom, how, when and where."²

That atheists are stigmatised in the United States was dramatically illustrated by the University of Minnesota researchers Penny Edgell and Joseph Gerteis in their frequently cited 2006 article ‘Atheists As "Other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society’, in which they present data indicating that atheists are much more stigmatised than other historically marginalised groups: "Atheists are at the top of the list of groups that Americans find problematic in both public and private life and the gap between acceptance of atheists and acceptance of other racial and religious minorities is large and persistent. It is striking that the rejection of atheists is so much more common than rejection of other stigmatised groups."3

Margaret Downey began collecting discrimination narratives through the Anti-Discrimination Support Network (ADSN) she founded in 1993.⁴ Downey has collected hundreds of detailed stories of atheists losing their jobs, facing abusive family situations, being subjected to organised campaigns and even death threats. More recent work by the staff at the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers documents the hostile environment for atheists in the military.

The "New Atheists" are not so new

There has been a "freethinking" movement in the United States for a very long time, even predating the outspoken 19th century orator Robert Ingersoll. Indeed atheists have had many champions over the centuries, from the European thinkers Thomas Aquinas, David Hume and Immanuel Kant and more recently in the United States, Madalyn O’Hair, Michael Shermer and Carl Sagan. The so-called "New Atheists" – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens (d. 2011) – are but the latest in what is now a more widely publicised movement.

Media attention on atheists in the United States has been on the increase in the last half decade and includes highly publicised debates between believers and non-believers, bus advertisement campaigns, numerous editorials and documentaries. An impressive rise in Internet-based social networking sites specifically for atheists has occurred, most notably Atheist Nexus which in just over the first 14 months attracted well over 15,000 members worldwide and had 1,00,000 unique visitors every month.

Despite all of this attention, there remains in the public mind a very monolithic and negative image of atheists and there seems to be no end in sight to this particular dimension of the culture wars. Ray Comfort, in the ‘Introduction’ to his special 150th Anniversary Edition of The Origin of Species, writes: "It’s rare to find an atheist who doesn’t embrace Darwinism with open arms. Many believe that with creation adequately explained by evolution, there is no need for a god and no moral responsibility."⁵ This stereotype about non-believers is pervasive and distressingly common among Christians, especially in the American South. The sad fact is that Comfort is but one voice among many working to perpetuate the marginalisation and even demonisation of atheists. That non-believers are decidedly not a homogeneous set of amoral individuals may be obvious to those who are close to this topic but much work remains to more completely address the negative stereotypes.

Recent efforts to describe and more thoroughly understand the non-religious segment of the population in the United States have yielded rich and instructive data. In his 2009 article ‘Profiles of the Godless’, Luke Galen provides a useful survey of this growing body of literature as to the characteristics of atheists: the surveys consistently report that atheists are predominantly male, highly educated and overwhelmingly liberal. My research reported here is intended to expand on this data set so that we may better understand the stigma in order to attenuate it.⁶

Methodology

The survey "Coming Out as an Atheist" was live on the Atheist Nexus website (atheistnexus.org) for four months, from September to December 2008. During the time the survey was up news of its existence spread throughout the Internet on various atheist-oriented websites, blogs and listservs (most notably when it was mentioned by PZ Myers on the Pharyngula site http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula). Although the vast majority of the questions were in a forced-choice format, one question was open-ended and over half of the respondents took the time to describe a situation where they had felt some stigma associated with being an atheist.

All forms of data collection present unique challenges and problems, including the use of the Internet. Nevertheless, the data obtained in this study do provide insight into the lives of the self-identified atheists who completed the survey. These are individuals who: a) have access to the Internet, and b) feel comfortable enough in their atheism to seek out communities online where they could speak with similar individuals. Although findings from this study may not be generalised to all atheists, research by Nadine Koch and Jolly Emrey suggests that Internet research conducted on marginalised populations may have more generalising power than previously thought.⁷ For example, they found that demographics for gay/lesbian samples obtained from Internet communities mirrored gay/lesbian population demographics. Furthermore, demographics of those participating in the survey were nearly identical to those who chose not to participate. And the psychologist Sam Gosling and his colleagues, after an extensive study on Internet-based research programmes, concluded: "Evidence so far suggests that Internet-based findings are consistent with findings based on traditional methods."⁸ Research supports the possibility that there is a strong social desirability bias – people are more honest when they don’t have to interact with the real person – in telephone surveys and that more valid results may indeed be yielded by online surveys.⁹

Results

The population represented in this survey of 8,200 respondents looked very similar to other survey populations of atheists¹⁰: many more males (74 per cent) than females, highly educated (62 per cent with college or graduate degrees), overwhelmingly white and very liberal (42 per cent). Though most (71 per cent or 5,398) of the respondents were from the US, the survey was completed by significant numbers from around the world (29 per cent or 2,218) and thus allows some suggestive comparisons.

Respondents were offered nine options: Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist, Bright, Freethinker, Sceptic, Naturalist, Non-believer and Other, in answer to the question: "Which word below do you most often use to identify yourself?". The overwhelming majority – 71 per cent – responded with "atheist". This result remained roughly steady when controlling for gender, age and geographic location. Interestingly, there was no close second place in terms of the preferred label, with none of the remaining options attracting much over five per cent of the responses. Of note is that in answer to the question: "How comfortable do you feel being labelled an atheist?", people from the United States were far less comfortable being labelled an atheist (54 per cent) as compared to those in, for example, western Europe (73 per cent).

The remaining 29 per cent however are spread over scores of different terms. Many respondents indicated that what they call themselves depends on the social context. Although many had very serious and thoughtful alternatives such as: "rationalist", "critical atheist", "antitheist", "teleologist", "non-theistic Reconstructionist Jew" or "Gnostic atheist", others had more whimsical responses such as "Pastafarian" and "Anti-Christer." One that perhaps captures the essence of this entire semantic struggle answered "midway between atheist and agnostic, waiting for atheist to lose its social stigma". Herein lies the crux of the problem. The stigma.

The stigma associated with being an atheist

In response to the question: "Which best describes your realisation that you are an atheist?", 19 per cent of those from the US indicated: "I have always known" compared to 33 per cent from the UK and 39 per cent in western Europe. For most atheists (56 per cent), this realisation was a gradual process over months or years.

In answer to the question: "How often did you attend religious services when you were growing up?", the data indicates that 64 per cent of those from the United States attended a house of worship at least a few times per month. Religious service attendance was much lower for those in other nations, with only 33 per cent of western Europeans indicating they went to services that often. Results for other nations include Canada 52 per cent, UK 43 per cent and Australia 45 per cent. While only 15 per cent of those from the US indicated they never went to religious services, the numbers are higher for other nations: Canada 21 per cent, UK 29 per cent, western Europe 27 per cent and Australia 15 per cent.

In response to the question: "Do you feel any stigma related to your atheism?", the data indicate a dramatic difference between the US and other western nations. While only 16 per cent of those from the US indicated they felt no social stigma related to their atheism, the numbers were much higher in other nations: Canada 38 per cent, UK 68 per cent, western Europe 68 per cent and Australia 56 per cent. On the other end of the response scale, the numbers tell the same story: 18 per cent of those from the US indicated they felt a strong social stigma related to being an atheist compared to only 5.8 per cent in Canada, two per cent in the UK, one per cent in western Europe and three per cent in Australia.

The survey’s most visceral responses addressed the assumption that atheists have no morals. Indeed the stories tell of atheists not just being seen as amoral but decidedly immoral. One woman from the Bible belt wrote: “Many times I’ve been told: ‘What stops you from going out and killing people?’!!”

In response to the question: "In general, how stigmatised do you feel atheists are in your culture?", the contrast between the responses from those in the US were dramatically different from those in other nations. The choice "not stigmatised at all" generated only two per cent of those from the US compared to 14 per cent from Canada, 46 per cent from the UK, 52 per cent from western Europe and 33 per cent from Australia. On the other end of the scale, 55 per cent of the US respondents indicated that atheists were "very stigmatised" compared to only 17 per cent from Canada, four per cent from the UK, three per cent from western Europe and four per cent from Australia. One of the most consistent patterns related to stigma was within the US. On every question, the four regions used for comparison – Bible belt, Midwest, West and North-east – the percentages for each response remained in the exact same order through all measures.

Social repercussions of being identified as an atheist

Three questions in the survey asked the respondent to predict the repercussions should they be identified as an atheist. These questions were all phrased as follows: "Do you feel that there would be any social repercussions if people in your [workplace/family/local community] found out that you were an atheist?" The results indicate significant differences between the US and other nations in all three scenarios.

While 57 per cent of those respondents from the US felt there would be at least minor repercussions in the workplace, only 12 per cent of those from western Europe felt that way. The other nations are as follows: Canada 35 per cent, UK 15 per cent and Australia 24 per cent.

While 61 per cent of those respondents from the US felt there would be at least minor repercussions in the family, only 20 per cent of those from western Europe felt that way. The other nations are as follows: Canada 46 per cent, UK 22 per cent and Australia 27 per cent.

While 68 per cent of those respondents from the US felt there would be at least minor repercussions in the local community, only 18 per cent of those from the UK felt that way. The other nations are as follows: Canada 48 per cent, western Europe 22 per cent and Australia 31 per cent.

When examining this data set broken down by region within the US, the pattern mentioned above again manifests itself. In all three scenarios, it is the Bible belt and the Midwest where the repercussions proved to be the most severe. It is with the family where there is the most fear of repercussions, with both the Bible belt and the Midwest in double digits predicting major repercussions. That females comprised only 25 per cent of the respondents to this survey certainly raises some important questions beyond the scope of the present article. There has been little research on how the stigma of being an atheist varies by gender. The present data suggest that being an atheist is more difficult socially for females than for males. In the present data, females differed somewhat from males: they were slightly younger on average and significantly more liberal, with 53 per cent reporting themselves as "very liberal" compared to 38 per cent of the males.

In response to the question: "Do you feel any social stigma related to your atheism?", 78 per cent of the females reported at least slight stigma as compared to 69 per cent of the males, indicating that the stigma is moderately greater for a female. Restated, while 20 per cent of the females said they felt no social stigma, 30 per cent of the males put themselves in that category.

While 46 per cent of the females believed there would be no social repercussions if people at their workplace found out they were atheists, 55 per cent of the males felt the same, indicating that more females than males feared at least some workplace repercussions.

The data with respect to social repercussions if family found out they were atheist are very similar to those found regarding the workplace: 41 per cent of the females felt there would be none while 50 per cent of the males reported the same.

Though the national and regional differences regarding perceived stigma are interesting, I think there is a greater need for deeper research into its gendered nature.

"And God Bless America!"

Atheists are marginalised and made to feel uncomfortable when a major political official ends her/his speech with "and may God bless America" or when grandmother asks "who is going to say grace?" before a holiday meal.

In two survey questions: "Which best describes how you feel in more intimate social situations where religion is invoked (for example, a pre-meal prayer with family or friends)?" and "Which best describes how you feel in public gatherings where religion is invoked (for example, when a speaker refers to god or says a prayer)?", the results were dramatic. Respondents indicated overwhelmingly that they felt at least a slight discomfort in both situations: 79 per cent of all respondents were uncomfortable in intimate social situations and 82 per cent felt discomfort with regard to public settings.

The vast majority (86 per cent) of the females reported feeling at least slight discomfort while a slightly smaller – but possibly statistically significant – percentage of the males felt the same way (76 per cent). Fifteen per cent of the females reported feeling no discomfort while 24 per cent of the males reported feeling no discomfort.

The stories of stigma

Nearly 4,200 respondents offered written responses to the prompt: "Please provide an example of a social situation where you experienced stigmatisation because you are an atheist". These narratives provide perhaps the richest information yielded from the data and clear patterns emerge, clarifying and deepening the sketch provided by the quantitative numbers from the forced-choice questions. Perhaps the most visceral responses addressed the assumption perpetuated by Ray Comfort and others, namely that atheists have no morals. Indeed the stories tell of atheists not just being seen as amoral but decidedly immoral.

One woman from the Bible belt wrote: "Many times I’ve been told: ‘What stops you from going out and killing people?’!!" A middle-aged female noted: "My six-year-old son was cornered in first grade by three other six-year-olds who screamed at him: ‘You will believe in Jesus!! You will believe in Jesus!!’ Not so good."

A young male confessed: "My wife told me that I’m caught in Satan’s grip and confessed that after I de-converted, she considered leaving me. I believe the only reason she didn’t is because she’s financially dependent on me." Another described: "I’ve had people literally, physically back away from me upon hearing I am atheist. My children were told to run away from our evil home."

Conclusion

Many more examples could be cited from the data but the tone and pattern are clear. The stigma associated with being an atheist, especially in the American Bible belt, is real, pervasive and oppressive. It is affecting the lives and livelihoods of many. But just how many? A recent survey by Trinity College in Connecticut found that 15 per cent of Americans claim they adhere to no religion, making them the fastest growing group of believers – or rather, non-believers – in the US. The Trinity College American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) also found that the number of people who self-identify as "non-religious" is growing in every state. Data from the Pew Forum US Religious Landscape Survey appears to support the ARIS data.

According to several estimates, there are many more non-believers in the US other than historically marginalised groups. Yet this highly stigmatised group has no protection from discrimination and there are still laws on the books in six states prohibiting non-believers from holding public office, including my own home state, North Carolina.

Is a future where atheists in the US are not stigmatised possible? Work done to minimise or eliminate stigma by other historically marginalised groups such as homosexuals, HIV-positive individuals and others with physical challenges such as epilepsy has had mixed success. The social movement referred to by some as the "New Atheism" is focused among other things on the de-stigmatisation of atheism. It is hoped that research data such as presented here will contribute to useful dialogue on this problem.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2012. Year 18, No.166 – Cover Story
 This article was published in Skepticmagazine in January 2010. http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/archives/15.4/

References

1 Goffman, Erving, 1959, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, p. 5.

2 Ibid, p. 42.

3 Edgell, Penny and Gerteis, Joseph, 2006, ‘Atheists As "Other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society’, American Sociological Review, 71, p. 230.

4 Downey, Margaret, 2004, ‘Discrimination Against Atheists: The Facts’, Free Inquiry, June 1, pp. 41-43.

5 Comfort, Ray, 2009, ‘Special Introduction’ to the 150th Anniversary Edition of The Origin of Species, Alachua, Fl, Bridge-Logos, p. 39.

6 Galen, Luke, 2009, ‘Profiles of the Godless: Results from a survey of the non-religious’, Free Inquiry, Aug/Sept 2009, pp. 41-45.

7 Koch, Nadine and Emrey, Jolly, 2001, ‘The Internet and Opinion Measurement: Surveying Marginalised Populations’, Social Science Quarterly, 82, pp. 131-138.

8 Gosling, Samuel, et al, 2004, ‘Should We Trust Web-Based Studies?’, American Psychologist, 59, pp. 93-104.

9 Presser, Stanley and Stinson, Linda, 1998, ‘Data Collection Mode and Social Desirability Bias in Self-Reported Religious Attendance’, American Sociological Review, 63, pp. 137-145.

10 Shermer, Michael, 2000, How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, New York, Henry Holt; Hunsberger, Bruce and Altemeyer, Bob, 2006, Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America’s Nonbelievers, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books.

The post The stigma of being an atheist appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 2006 study conducted by the University of Minnesota found that atheists ranked lower than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in "sharing their vision of American society". Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry. The results from two of the most important questions were:

This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society…

Atheist: 39.6 per cent; Muslim: 26.3 per cent; Homosexual: 22.6 per cent; Conservative Christian: 13.5 per cent; Recent Immigrant: 12.5 per cent; Hispanic: 7.6 per cent; Jew: 7.4 per cent; Asian American: 7.0 per cent; African American: 4.6 per cent; White American: 2.2 per cent

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group…

Atheist: 47.6 per cent; Muslim: 33.5 per cent; African American: 27.2 per cent; Asian American: 18.5 per cent; Hispanic: 18.5 per cent; Jew: 11.8 per cent; Conservative Christian: 6.9 per cent; White: 2.3 per cent

Lead researcher Penny Edgell said that she was surprised by this: "We thought that in the wake of 9/11, people would target Muslims. Frankly, we expected atheists to be a throwaway group." Nevertheless, the numbers are so extreme that she was led to conclude that they are "a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years". It’s not that bigotry and discrimination against Muslims is appropriate but at least it’s not hard to understand where such attitudes would come from.

Every group except atheists is being shown much greater tolerance and acceptance than 30 years ago. "Our analysis shows that attitudes about atheists have not followed the same historical pattern as that for previously marginalised religious groups. It is possible that the increasing tolerance for religious diversity may have heightened awareness of religion itself as the basis for solidarity in American life and sharpened the boundary between believers and non-believers in our collective imagination."

Some respondents associated atheism with illegal behaviour like drug use and prostitution: "that is, with immoral people who threaten respectable community from the lower end of the social hierarchy". Others saw atheists as "rampant materialists and cultural elitists" who "threaten common values from above – the ostentatiously wealthy who make a lifestyle out of consumption or the cultural elites who think they know better than everyone else".

Given the relatively low number of atheists in America, and the even lower number who are public about their atheism, Americans can’t have come to their beliefs about atheists through personal experience and hard evidence about what atheists are really like. Furthermore, dislike of atheists doesn’t correlate very highly with dislike of gays, immigrants or Muslims. This means that dislike of atheists isn’t simply part of a larger dislike of people who are "different".

Why are atheists being singled out for special hatred and distrust? "What matters for public acceptance of atheists – and figures strongly into private acceptance as well – are beliefs about the appropriate relationship between church and state and about religion’s role in underpinning society’s moral order, as measured by… whether society’s standards of right and wrong should be based on god’s laws." It is curious that atheists should be singled out for special hatred on the basis of church/state separation which religious theists, including Christians, are usually in the forefront of fighting to preserve. It is rare to find a case filed by or supported by atheists which is not also supported by theists and Christians. In fact, I can’t think of any offhand.

Although people may say that they consider atheists inferior because atheists don’t believe that civil law should be defined according to some group’s conception of what their god wants, I don’t think that’s the whole story. There are too many religious theists who also want civil law to be secular rather than religious. Instead, I think that a much better case can be made for the idea that atheists are being scapegoated the same way that Catholics and Jews once were: they are treated as social outsiders who create "moral and social disorder".

Atheists can’t both be lower-class drug users or prostitutes and upper-class elitists and materialists. Instead, atheists are being saddled with the "sins" of American society generally. They are "a symbolic figure" that represents religious theists’ "fears about… trends in American life". Some of those fears involve "lower-class" crimes like drug use; other fears involve "upper-class" crimes like greed and elitism. Atheists are thus a "symbolic representation of one who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in American society altogether".

That’s obviously not going to change, because as long as atheists remain atheists, they won’t be theists and they won’t be Christians. This means that they won’t agree that any gods, much less the Christian god, can serve as the basis for moral solidarity or cultural membership in American society. Of course, neither can adherents of many other religions who either don’t believe in gods or who don’t believe in the Christian god. As America becomes more religiously pluralist, America is going to have to change and find something else to serve as the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership. Atheists should work to ensure that this is as secular as possible.

 This article was posted on the website About.com; http://atheism.about.com/

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2012.Year 18, No.166 – Cover Story

The post No room for disbelief appeared first on SabrangIndia.