In my work as an interfaith activist, I've fought to bring an end to religious division. Lately this has increasingly meant speaking out against the rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence sweeping America. As a member of the Common Ground Campaign, I'm actively working to oppose those who wish to disenfranchise the American Muslim community.
Advocating for religious people has often put me at odds with my own community. As an atheist I hear a lot of anti-religious talk from other nonreligious people, and speaking out against it has made me somewhat of an unpopular figure among some atheists. Yet it is precisely because I am an atheist, and not in spite of it, that I am motivated to do interfaith work.
Why? For one, without religious tolerance and pluralism, I wouldn't be free to call myself an atheist without fear of retribution. Not that long ago, I could not have been a public, vocal atheist at all.
Still, this expanded freedom shouldn't suggest that everything is coming up roses for atheists in America. Earlier this year, Concordia College in Moorhead, MN forbade the formation of a secular student group, claiming that the group's mission was in direct opposition with the school's identity as an institution affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Concordia, which currently recognizes a Catholic student group, has so far refused to reconsider their decision. As a graduate of Augsburg College, another Minnesota school affiliated with the ELCA, I was alarmed by this news. Concordia's decision received little attention and it seems that few came to the secular students' defense. Imagine if the school had declined to recognize a Muslim or Jewish student group: would others have spoken up? It seems likely that there would have been a larger response.
Atheists' identities are regularly belittled or dismissed; we often hear that there are "no atheists in the foxhole," that "atheists are parasites," and the reality remains that we still aren't eligible to hold public office in several parts of this country. Even in places where atheists can hold office, studies have shown that we are the least electable group in America. Nearly half of American parents don't want us marrying their kids. Glenn Beck constantly targets atheists, blaming us for America's problems and saying we have no substance. Yet few people outside of our community come to our defense in the face of such blatant prejudice.
That is changing, however. When Pope Benedict XVI condemned atheists and compared them to the Nazi regime during his recent trip to the United Kingdom, Universal Society of Hinduism President Rajan Zed issued a statement encouraging the Pope to be more inclusive and tolerant of the nonreligious. Though Benedict was likely responding to a forceful atheist-led campaign against his visit, his comments were disappointing, and Zed was right to critique him. His call for tolerance of atheists was encouraging, and one we should hear more often.
More and more, as I do interfaith work, I encounter religious people who are willing to speak up on our behalf. Wanting to include a nonreligious perspective, the organizers of Duquesne University's upcoming symposium on Muslim-Christian dialogue recently invited me to discuss my work for the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue (JIRD) and the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions (CPWR). What I plan to say to them is what I'd like to say to you now:
Muslim-Christian dialogue is an extraordinary start, but it should be just that: a beginning. Interfaith proponents must build upon successful dialogues like the one Duquesne will soon host, and expand their efforts to include people of other faiths -- Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc. -- and those who fall outside traditional religious paradigms, including the nonreligious. Secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, and the like must be an integral part of such conversations.
Earlier this month I wrote a series of articles for The New Humanism on whether the nonreligious should join in interfaith efforts. My answer to this question was a resounding "yes," but as I acknowledged in my assessment of the issue, the atheist community is very divided on the subject. Much of this division stems from the fact that many atheists see themselves as "deconversion missionaries" opposed to any efforts that would promote religious identities. But I also wonder if there isn't at least a small bit of legitimate resentment over the lack of invitation atheists have sometimes received from interfaith communities.
Any discomfort religious people experience over engaging with the nonreligious must be set aside for the sake of truly inclusive interfaith collaboration. This isn't to say that such hesitancy is entirely unmerited; just as there are Christians who seem to have the sole mission of converting others to their religion, there are many atheists who only engage with people of faith in hopes of convincing them to abandon their tenets. But there are also atheists who are content to listen and to share, to dialogue instead of debate. They are part of a growing population of people who don't believe in God but still want the same things everyone else wants: meaning, community, and a better world.
Atheists interested in collaboration instead of confrontation deserve to be included. We bring a unique set of experiences and insights to conversations on religion and ethics. Don't leave us out.
A Christian man once asked me why I do interfaith work. We ended up discussing a whole range of topics, and at one point he posited the question: "Okay, but tell me this, Mr. Atheist: where did we come from? How did all of this get here?"
I answered: "I'm not a scientist, but I can perhaps best describe it as some incredible series of random events. But to be honest, that question doesn't really matter to me. I couldn't care less how we got here; what concerns me, given that we are here, is what will we do?"
He clutched his chest, hugged me and grinned, nodding his solid agreement.
What will we do? I hope we will defend tolerance for all and engage one another's deepest questions and convictions with respect and compassion, whether we are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Sikh -- or atheist.
Follow Chris Stedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NonProphetStat
Share your Comment:
Although I agree that atheism in itself is not a religion.
Your assertion is totally baseless.
- pico
Not the atheists I know.
Give an example of your claim.
Is this a real attempt to proselytize? Because, the way you've packaged what you seem to be selling, I can't imagine you achieve anything other than annoying people.
I know lots of Christians, including my mother, who would disavow any connection between what you spew and what they believe.
As for your definition of atheist, please look it up. I'm tired of explaining.
The worse I have seen the media done is criticize religious fundamentalism like Evangelical Christianity. Oh, and South Park and other comedy shows poke fun at Jesus. You know, South Park, the show that makes fun of everyone. Really, unless you are some idiot who thinks the world is 6,000 years old, the media generally leaves your religious beliefs alone. And personal interactions, I hope that goes well beyond just someone challenging and disagreeing with your religious beliefs.
In the last week I've seen a TV show where a character said that "everyone needs to have faith in something". I'm an atheist, I don't have faith. I spent all of grade school having to figure out what to do with and ultimately omit the words "under God" when saying the Pledge. Since you are assaulted too, what words of the Pledge do you have to omit? It tolerant, liberal areas amongst friends and family, I still have to endure people suggesting I really have faith in God and just don't know it yet. How often are you told you don't believe and just don't know it yet?
When Christians can't watch TV without being told to become an atheist and can't say some words in the Pledge, maybe you are being assaulted. But as far as I can see, Christians have enjoyed a lot of privilege for a while and now they are losing it. Losing privilege and encountering disagreement is not being "assaulted".
(Pope Saint Pius X, "Our Apostolic Mandate," 1910)
http://gerrymatatics.org/
I would have to admit that the atheist has the harder time because of how entrenched religion is in this country. The atheists only choice is a religious person (or at least one giving lip service to religion).
I do believe there is a place for atheists in religious forums depending what the forum was for. A forum trying to come to an understanding of the divine would probably not be a place for atheists. A forum on helping humanity would definitly be a place where atheist input would be appropriate.
The more atheists speak up, the more people will have the courage to abandon religion. Many people do not believe the teachings of their churches, but they do not know any non-theists (or don't know that they do). So they feel alone. Once they realize there are more of us out in the community, that their feelings are normal and rational, and that we non-theists are decent, moral people, they may feel empowered to be open about their own beliefs.
As for tolerance, people are free to believe whatever they want. But that doesn't mean I should not question, challenge and criticize their beliefs. Having been a theist 40-some years, I know firsthand that the reason most people continue to believe their religion is that they have never questioned their own beliefs. I do not think that it is healthy or honest to let that go. For their part, Christians certainly challenge MY beliefs so they should not feel threatened when I reciprocate. ;D
These things are true: The square of the longest side of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides. Tuesday follows Monday on the standardized Gregorian calendar. I am left handed when I write or eat, but right-handed in athletic activities.
What you just presented is a combination of myth and hearsay.
People who are questioning now have so many more resources; books, Internet websites, chat rooms. . . I do envy them.
I agree, but I don't think it's worthwhile to try to engage them directly. I ignore them as much as possible while engaging in conversation with reasonable thinkers. Hopefully, those who might abandon religion will at least see something else on the menu of choice. I'm exhausted from engaging directly with these people (it's the same conversation and it feels like beating my head against the wall).
fanned!
"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
Jefferson provides us with a reasoned and appropriate call for civil institutions to be completely neutral in matters of religion. It's astounding that civil dialogue has anything to do with religious opinion, because a common religion has never been historically necessary for civilizations to progress and accomplish great works. If we held to wisdom and treated religion as an individual matter, there would never be faith-based exclusions in civil debate.
If, by "advocating for religious people", you mean advocating for religion, I can see how that would "put you at odds" with other atheists.
"For one, without religious tolerance and pluralism, I wouldn't be free to call myself an atheist without fear of retribution."
If it weren't for religion ... your non-belief wouldn't need to be "tolerated" ... and there would be no need for "vocal atheists" ... in fact, there would not even be a need for the label "atheist".
"Not that long ago, I could not have been a public, vocal atheist at all."
Robert Ingersoll was saying some of the same things that Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and many others are saying today ... to large audiences ... 150 years ago.
I think you should be thanking our "free speech" for allowing you to be a "vocal atheist" ... not religious tolerance.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?"
There are plenty of opportunities where believers and non-believers are working together to the benefit of believers and non-believers.
Public education is an example. Teachers are most likely a mix of believers and non-believers and so are students. This works because the constitution forbids teachers to impose their faith on their students.
I would think that if representatives of all faints would get together to resolve all their incompatible claims once and for all that they should end up with the golden rule because that is what you end up with if you remove all immorality and superstition from the holy books from all religions.
Religions should be able to do this without the help of non-believers.
Tens of thousands of years ago early humanoids lived in small groups (the fossil record shows this). Life is a struggle and food is hard to find. People hunt for food. Today, I may be lucky and catch something and have more than I can eat but food spoils quickly. Then for days I may not be lucky at all and risk starving to death. If I share my food with those who came back from hunting empty handed, they will let me have some of their food when I come back from hunting empty handed. People start to reciprocate. Then this slowly expand to not stealing from someone because I don't want others to steal what I have, etc...
No wonder than all religions co-opted this basic concept which we call the golden rule in their books of superstition.
The fact that we are largely non-faithists highlights part of what is wrong about the notion of us doing interfaith dialogue.
"OK. . .Dr. Krauss spends 47 minutes explaining Cosmology and how scientists have measured that, through Quantum Physics, something can be created from nothing"....
Something for nothing -talk about delusion...which begs the question- where does that unlimited arrogance Dawkins and his followers posses come from? from nothing, of course.
This is in line with Buddhist philosophy and Vedanta, BTW
http://www.wellredbear.com/terence-mckenna-meets-the-machine-elves-of-hyperspace-struck-by-noetic-lightning
I didn't think so either. . .
Knowledge and wisdom requires patience and effort.
Faith requires nothing.
Actually yes, I did watch it, and I'm quite familiar with the subject. Concluding I did not watch it is more indicative of someone who's either endowed with magic powers, or is incredibly adept at reading crystal balls OR is in contact with some divine force mere mortals have no access to....
No wonder you find it so appealing to have a universe emerge out of nothing, it saves you
from actually having to really learn science and not just parrot what others tell you.
Such a tack is much, much easier tho, you get to pontificate and put down those silly religionists that make you feel oh so superior and that allow you believe yours is the true faith. Freedom of religion I say.
"In my work as an interfaith activist, I've fought to bring an end to religious division. Lately this has increasingly meant speaking out against the rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence sweeping America. As a member of the Common Ground Campaign, I'm actively working to oppose those who wish to disenfranchise the American Muslim community."
Yes, I do allow for the God/No God debate, do we reach some sort of compromise to the debate that basically ends it or do we hold our grown and debate the issue passionate to persuade people of our position? I think the God/No God thing is an intellectual difference of opinion and thus is not open to a compromise.
What I am getting at is how much is open to compromise?
Also, who said we need common ground to have the conversation? I'm entirely happy with the possibility that the conversation may largely be just a debate. Atheists could expose people to our views and raise awareness about issues like "under God" in the Pledge and childhood indoctrination. People needn't arrive to the conversation knowing about or agreeing with our point of view already. Clearly we should make some sort of public case for our views and interests.
I agree that this would be a discussion between very different views of religious matters and thus would be very different than conversations between believers in different "invisible friends". The author shows no sensitivity to that. However, the fact that this is a different sort of conversation does not mean we can't have a conversation.
I have also copied and posted the deleted ones and asked them to explain why they were deleted. Hope this helps and I hope you stay around. We atheists ( I mean me) would miss your voice if you opted to go
To sort of drive at some of what I think Stedman needs to address, the disagreement isn't over atheists and theists having a conversation. But what we call the conversation matters and, well, atheism isn't a faith so it can't do interfaith. Also, there seems to be a disagreement over what the conversation should be like. To some of this the conversation is very different than we be between say Christians and Muslims. It needn't be compromising on our differences and it might need to be a debate. I think the author is rather insensitive to such concerns.
Most of the arguments in these types of threads are semantic in nature.
Atheists don't believe in the existence of deities, period.
I don't believe either, and I'm not agnostic.
The fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'God' for me is that we humans always seem to think that we can anthropomorphize her/him.
We are soooo smart that we always pat ourselves on the back when we deduce the what, where, when, how and even the who but the irreducible concept always ends up being the 'Why'...Always in the cross-hairs of any objective scientific investigation, and always the last question that is asked...The unfathomable...the mystery and omnipotence of Mother Nature....God
Heaven and Hell are right here on this Earth....right now. Don't wait 'til it's too late to appreciate that. Smell the roses...enjoy the sunsets...make sweet love with your partner and savor it (heaven)....then ponder what life would be like if you didn't know where your next meal was coming from, or if it were even coming at all...or if that drunk guy making his way up the stairs was yet again preparing to treat you as the cause of all of his inadequacies..(hell)
Now...do I, and people who think like me get a seat at the table...?
The fact is, to "anthropomorphize" something means to attribute human characteristics, not just human form. Even if God does not have a human form, many theists (even moderates) believe that he is sentient, or moral, or thinks in a manner similar to the way that people think. Without an anthropomorphic view of God, you are left with deism. The Christian God, even the "sophisticated" version, simply requires human-like qualities.
I would not for a moment presume that god thinks in a manner similar to the way that people think, or shares any other characteristics of our perception/conception. I would not care to say that god thinks at all, as I understand the term. To me, that paints a very limited view of god, and god is so much...... ummmmm I don't know..... so much bigger than that.
If you want to do something good for the environment, then use that as an angle.
If you want to do something good for the poor, then use that as an angle.
If you want to do something good for a future generation, then use that as an angle.
I don't see what faith has to do with civility or compassion.
If there is going to be a multi-faith soup kitchen opened, and the faiths involved want equal representation for pamphlets handed out with the meals trying to explain their ideologies, wouldn't you like to have a pamphlet that explains the basic arguments atheists make handed it with it? I would think so. MAybe adding that the pamphlets should be simply left on tables where they are available, and not handed out, but basic fact sheets about personal health should be handed out instead could be an idea added to the pot.
Talk about how you think religion is fine, and that you have no problem with adults indulging in it of their own volition, as long as it's kept out of the laws and the science classes. Explain your angle on things, so that people who are deciding how they are going to try and shape the world don't leave you out. I would think you would not want your opinion left out.
Emmanuel, when an atheist wants to participate in a soup kitchen, it is because they are there to feed the needy, not to promote their atheism. Getting out views on a pamphlet is just not why we would be there.
TED is where people come to share their research and cutting edge ideas. People can give a TED talk one day and debate god the next. Sam Harris for one has done this. TED and debates are two very different yet very important types of conversations.
You haven't quite addressed why an atheist would want to mix their caring for their fellow man and planet with their atheism. Atheism just has nothing to do with our caring for others.
What?!?!? That's the craziest thing I've heard all morning, though that's only because I'm used to Daleri by now.
Many of us still can't. We would lose our jobs (another reason would be given), our places in our communities, our kids would be bullied. . . We dare not speak up anywhere but anonymously online.
""No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." -- George H.W. Bush
You have just as much chance of facing those same problems for admitting your a Hindu in this society. My wife's 11 year old brother told his Christian 'rents that he was converting to Hinduism, and his 'dad' (adoptive) told him "I can't trust you anymore".
You have to stand up for what you believe in, and face the consequences, that's the only way to effect change.
It really is only now that you are hearing more about atheists speaking up for themselves. I am no longer working, the kids are grown and live in cities where they can say whatever they want, and my husband is working for the other hospital now, so we could talk about it if we wanted. But one (I thought) friend I told dumped me in fear and loathing several years ago. She is a devout Catholic and it scared her silly to think she had been doing charity work with an atheist for over a decade, and even coming to my heathen home! I told her that I was the same person she had always known, and she said, "Not to me!" This is the sort of mentality we are dealing with here. I used to see her several times a week for work or chat. I have not seen her since.
My sisters already try to reconvert me every time I see them. Now that I am disabled, I think they see me as easier game. Surrounded is not a comfortable position to be in. I'd rather just avoid talking about religion at all with relatives or friends.
Many believers in the Jesus god or the god of Islam believe that atheists are evilness incarnate. They believe they have no morals, and so will do anything.
How did your kids handle the fallout from your being outspoken?
And that's in America. There are still many places of the world where you could be killed simply for saying that you do not believe in a God.
We have to keep making strives forward until we reach the point where it is okay for us to all come out of the close simply because there are too many of us to ignore and the retribution would be too large.