Under Iran’s theocratic dictatorship atheist Soheil Arabi faced death for blasphemy

Thousands were released in Iran, but not atheist prisoner Soheil Arabi

The activist and blogger sentenced to blasphemy is on hunger strike

By Rahila Gupta  

CLICK ABOVE to DONATE

Soheil Arabi. Photo: Nano GoleSorkh

If lockdown has deepened our empathy with the predicament of inmates in our jails, it has also released innovative means of protest on behalf of political prisoners locked up in brutal conditions. On 14th April, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain organised a self-declared first: a three-hour online protest, live-streamed on Facebook, mixing music, poetry and an array of international speakers, in support of Soheil Arabi.

Arabi is an atheist, activist and blogger. He’s in an Iranian prison, in bad shape both emotionally and physically. His crime? Blasphemy: writing insulting Facebook posts about the prophet Muhammad, the Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei and other Iranian officials. Arabi was arrested in December 2013 and sentenced to death for blasphemy. In July 2015, upon appeal, his death sentence was reduced to seven and a half years in prison and two years of religious studies to cure him of his atheism. In addition to physical problems caused by various hunger strikes, Arabi has been tortured, resulting in blunt trauma to his testicles and a broken nose, amongst other injuries.

Refusing to be silenced, he was later sentenced to an additional three years in prison, exile and a fine on charges of “propaganda against the state” and “insulting the sacred and the supreme leader” because of his open letters highlighting inhumane prison conditions of political prisoners in Iran. As if to rub the mullahs’ noses in it, he signs letters as Soheil Arabi, Atheist.

Iran, Pakistan and Yemen are the three worst countries in regard to the implementation of blasphemy law, often used to harass religious and ethnic minorities. (See my interview with Saif ul-Malook, the lawyer who represented Asia Bibi. A Christian woman, Bibi spent nine years in prison on confected charges of blasphemy, many of those on death row, before the sentence was commuted to life.) According to The Freedom of Thought report 2019, blasphemy laws exist in 69 countries and is punishable by death in six.

We don’t know the number of prisoners sentenced to death for blasphemy in Iran. Figures are hard to come by. A 2018 Amnesty report put the number of individuals executed at over 253, while 18 were convicted of moharebeh (enmity against God) and 14 of “spreading corruption on earth”, vague terms for blasphemy much in vogue in Iran. Any criticism of the state can be deemed a religious offence and has proven a handy mechanism for controlling dissent.

Arabi resumed his hunger strike on April 4 in protest at the Iranian regime’s denial of medical care, inhuman prison conditions and the denial of leave for prisoners during the coronavirus pandemic. In a bid to stop the spread of the virus, more than 85,000 prisoners were released on temporary leave, including the more well-known political prisoner Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the British-Iranian citizen imprisoned for allegedly “plotting to topple the Iranian government”. In his letter to the Greater Tehran Penitentiary announcing his hunger strike, Arabi asks, “And I have been imprisoned for telling the truth. Those who had embezzled money were granted prison leave and are now at large. Armed robbers are now at large. What is the danger of a journalist?”

Atheism is a red rag to religion in a way that religion rarely is to atheism – unless we are talking about authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union. It’s a point that is often eclipsed in liberal democracies where freedom of belief often trumps the freedom not to believe. Of course, in countries like Iran, neither freedom exists.

We greatly thank you for your on-going generous financial and enthusiastic personal support in appreciation for this site!

CLICK ABOVE to DONATE

https://www.facebook.com/groups/377012949129789/

https://twitter.com/ageofblasphemy

TWITTER

Tweet

American atheist blogger hacked to death in Bangladesh

American atheist blogger hacked to death in Bangladesh

Avijit Roy, whose Mukto-Mona (Free-mind) blog championed liberal secular writing in the Muslim-majority nation, attacked along with his wife in Dhaka

Avijit Roy’s wife Rafida Ahmed Banna is carried on a stretcher after she was seriously injured by unidentified assailants. Roy, founded a blog site which champions liberal secular writing in the Muslim majority nation. Photograph: Rajib Dhar/AFP/Getty Images

 

A prominent American blogger of Bangladeshi origin was hacked to death with machetes by unidentified assailants in Dhaka, police said, with the atheist writer’s family claiming he had received numerous threats from Islamists.

The body of Avijit Roy, founder of Mukto-Mona (Free-mind) blog site which champions liberal secular writing in the Muslim-majority nation, was found covered in blood after the attack which also left his wife critically wounded.

“He died as he was brought to the hospital. His wife was also seriously wounded. She has lost a finger,” local police chief Sirajul Islam said.

The couple were on a bicycle rickshaw, returning from a book fair, when two assailants stopped and dragged them onto a sidewalk before striking them with machetes, local media reported citing witnesses.

Roy, said to be around 40, is the second Bangladeshi blogger to have been murdered in two years and the fourth writer to have been attacked since 2004.

Hardline Islamist groups have long demanded the public execution of atheist bloggers and sought new laws to combat writing critical of Islam.

“Roy suffered fatal wounds in the head and died from bleeding… after being brought to the hospital,” doctor Sohel Ahmed told reporters.

Police have launched a probe and recovered the machetes used in the attack but could not confirm whether Islamists were behind the incident.

But Roy’s father said the writer, a US citizen, had received a number of “threatening” emails and messages on social media from hardliners unhappy with his writing.

“He was a secular humanist and has written about ten books” including his most famous “Biswasher Virus” (Virus of Faith), his father Ajoy Roy told AFP.

The Center for Inquiry, a US-based charity promoting free thought, said it was “shocked and heartbroken” by the brutal murder of Roy.

“Dr Roy was a true ally, a courageous and eloquent defender of reason, science, and free expression, in a country where those values have been under heavy attack,” it said in a statement.

Roy’s killing also triggered strong condemnation from his fellow writers and publishers, who lamented the growing religious conservatism and intolerance in Bangladesh.

“The attack on Roy and his wife Rafida Ahmed is outrageous. We strongly protest this attack and are deeply concerned about the safety of writers,” Imran H. Sarker, head of an association for bloggers in Bangladesh, told AFP.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, a fellow blogger and friend of Roy, claimed one of the country’s largest online book retailers was being openly threatened for selling Roy’s books.

“In Bangladesh the easiest target is an atheist. An atheist can be attacked and murdered,” he wrote on Facebook.

Atheist blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider was hacked to death in 2013 by members of a little known Islamist militant group, triggering nationwide protests by tens of thousands of secular activists.

After Haider’s death, Bangladesh’s hardline Islamist groups started to protest against other campaigning bloggers, calling a series of nationwide strikes to demand their execution, accusing them of blasphemy.

The secular government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina reacted by arresting some atheist bloggers.

The government also blocked about a dozen websites and blogs to stem the furore over blasphemy, as well as stepping up security for the bloggers.

Bangladesh is the world’s fourth-largest Muslim majority nation with Muslims making up some 90 per cent of the country’s 160 million people.

A tribunal has recently handed down a series of verdicts against leading Islamists and others for crimes committed during the war of independence from Pakistan in 1971.

Everything We Know So Far About The Alleged Chapel Hill Shooter

Everything We Know So Far About The Alleged Chapel Hill Shooter

• Craig Hicks was charged with first-degree murder Wednesday.
• He has shared many atheist and anti-religious posts on Facebook.
• He appears to have defended Muslims and freedom of religion in past online comments.
• He does not appear to have a serious criminal record.

 

David Mack

BuzzFeed News Reporter

1. Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, was charged Tuesday with the murders of three of his Muslim neighbors in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Chapel Hill Police/Durham County Sheriff’s Department via Associated Press

2. On Wednesday, police said their initial investigation suggested the murders were linked to an ongoing dispute over parking between the neighbors, but they haven’t yet ruled out the possibility of a hate crime.

“Our investigators are exploring what could have motivated Mr. Hicks to commit such a senseless and tragic act,” police said in a statement. “We understand the concerns about the possibility that this was hate-motivated and we will exhaust every lead to determine if this is the case.”

3. Hicks’ Facebook page contains a long list of atheist and anti-religious posts.

4. One post he shared on Feb. 8 compared radical Christians to radical Muslims.

5. Another shared post mocked the notion of God saving people from death.

6. Last month, Hicks described himself as a “grumpy old man” after spotting a couple have sex in a vehicle in his parking lot.

“It is official, I am a grumpy old man,” the post read. “I now am sure of this, as when I saw a couple having sex in their vehicle in my parking lot a little bit ago instead of just ignoring it I called Chapel Hills [sic] finest on them.”

7. Hicks does not appear to have serious criminal record.

The records department of Winchester Police, Virginia, confirmed to BuzzFeed News that a man with the same name was charged and fined with the misdemeanor offense of “dog running at large” on Jan. 2, 1995. Their records showed his date of birth as Aug. 3, 1969, while Chapel Hill police say Hicks was born on Aug. 3, 1968.

8. On his Facebook page Hicks lists himself as married, says he owns a cat and dog, describes himself as a “patriotic American,” and states that he studied as a paralegal at Durham Technical Community College.

9. He is registered to vote, but is not registered with any party.

10. He lists himself as a fan of the cable access television show The Atheist Experience, as well as the religious horror film Stigmata.

11. An Amazon “wish list” that appeared to belong to Hicks had requested a gun concealment belt…

12. …a battlezone scope and 9-inch knife…

13. …and a camouflage suit and drone.

14. In a post on Aug. 19, 2010, debating the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” on XDtalk.com, an account that appeared to belong to Hicks posted that he had known “several dozen Muslims” and believed “that they aren’t what most think of them.”

When a user took a poll of the forum, the account that appeared to belong to Hicks voted in favor of a response reading, “I am indifferent about the project itself — I can see the arguments both for it and against it. But this is a free country, and the developers certainly have a right to express themselves.”

The full post reads as follows:

I voted #2 for several reasons.

The first amendment to our constitution guarantees freedom of religion, which takes precedence over any other “feeling” that any of us as Americans may have.
Beyond that though after being in D.C. for a decade and knowing several dozen Muslims for most of that time I can say that they aren’t what most think of them. In fact, I’d prefer them to most Christians as I was never coerced in any way by the Muslims to follow their religion, which I cannot say about many Christians.
While the terrorists who did the 9/11 attacks were Muslims, they were extremists in that faith which isn’t common. I know of many Christian extremists personally, much less the ones we have heard about on the news. People of this country don’t seem to hold that against Christianity though(probably because they’re a majority in this country).
While it may cause problems with those that don’t want it there with vandalizing and such, what if that excuse stopped our forefathers from starting a new nation. Civil rights, suffrage, heck even our own gun rights have been “fought” for at times. On that matter, the vast majority of our own ancestors in this country had to fight for their rights as Americans as most of the ethnic groups in this country were looked down on at some point(some still are).
This country was founded on freedoms, and many forget that one of the biggest freedoms that was fought for was freedom of religion. Then after all was said and done, Americans pushed west and took the lands of the Native Americans, put them on reservations(land that has no use), and stuffed religion down their throat. Their children were often taken from them to be taught Christianity(brainwashed might be a better word). They were not allowed to have their ancestral hair or garments, not allowed to use their given names but had to use the Christian ones assigned to them, and not allowed to speak their native tongue among other things. Funny how during World War 2, the same government that violated the Native Americans 1st amendment rights in the previous century were called upon because of their ancestral language.
With all that being said, I don’t see how anyone who calls themselves American can claim that a Mosque shouldn’t be TWO BLOCKS AWAY from what is known as ground zero.

16. Hicks also appeared to hold accounts on a number of gun websites.

17. In a profile that appeared to belong to him on RimfireCentral.com, he said he was a NRA member and listed his occupation as “Professional Bum.”

18. On Jan. 20, Hicks shared a photo of a handgun on scale with a caption reading, “Yes, that is 1 pound 5.1 ounces for my loaded revolver, its holster, and five extra rounds in a speedloader.”

19. On Wednesday, Hick’s wife Karen, a nurse with the Durham County Department of Health, told reporters the incident was not a hate crime.

WNCN / Via wncn.com

“I can say with absolute belief that this incident had nothing to do with religion of the victims’ faith, but it was related to a longstanding parking dispute that my husband had with the neighbors,” Karen Hicks said.

She said her husband of seven years treated people with respect. “He often champions on his Facebook page for the rights of individuals. … He believes everyone is equal – doesn’t matter what you look like or who you are or what you believe.”

21.

Here Are The Three Victims Of The Chapel Hill Shooting

22.

Three Muslim Students In North Carolina Shot Dead, Police Investigating If Attack Was Hate-Motivated

Check out more articles on BuzzFeed.com!

David Mack is a reporter and weekend editor for BuzzFeed News in New York.

Contact David Mack at david.mack@buzzfeed.com

Obama Is Correct; Christian Violence In The 20th Century

Despite Wingnut Freakout, Obama Is Right: Christian Violence Is Just as Bad as Muslim Violence

If anything, the president understated the case.

By Zaid Jilani

Photo Credit: Mykhaylo Palinchak/Shutterstock.com

This week, President Obama met with Muslim leaders in a private political meeting for the first time in his six-year presidency. The meeting set off predicatable angry reactions from the political right, with Fox News’ Sean Hannity even saying he wished Obama had demanded that the leaders publicly denounce radical Islam. Obama further raised the hackles of the Christian right when he said at the National Prayer Breakfast that no religion has a monopoly on violence, saying, “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. Slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

The reaction to these comments was apoplectic. Rush Limbaugh called it an “insult” to Christianity; the Tea Party News Network said Obama threw “Christians under the bus”; the Daily Caller surmised that Obama’s remarks were designed to “curb” criticism of Islam.

All of these critics failed to engage with the substance of what Obama was saying. The president was not attacking Christianity, he was simply noting that just as ISIS may be using the name of Islam to rally followers to its violent agenda, extremists within the Christian faith have done the same thing historically. Violence has been in the mainstream of Christianity throughout history.

If anything, Obama didn’t go far enough in his remarks. Christianist violence isn’t a relic of the Crusades; it continues today, and in many of its forms is just as violent as what we are seeing from ISIS.

Christian Violence in the Past Century

In the spring of 2013, Middle East historian Juan Cole decided to compare the body counts between violence committed by Christians and that committed by Muslims in the 20th century. He found that Muslim violence has claimed the lives of around 2 million people, mostly during the Iran-Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan, while violence by Christians claimed the lives of close to 100 million people. Here’s what that looks like on a pie graph:

Click to enlarge.

Some of this Christian-led violence is well-known: the World Wars, the Holocaust, the colonial wars in Southeast Asia and Africa. Critics of this analysis would be quick to say that this violence may have been by Christians, but it wasn’t in the name of Christianity. But in virtually every conflict Cole ticks off, the combatants were overtly religious, and often invoked their religion as part of their military campaigns, just as many of the Islamist militants today are not fighting solely due to a religious grievance, but are organized around groups that share a common religious and cultural background.

But religion has played a more explicit role in some of the 20th-century conflicts involving Christians. For example, the 1990 sectarian warfare in the Balkans culminated in an explicit genocide against Muslim Bosnians by Serbian Orthodox Christians. As Balkans researcher Keith Doubt explained in a 2007 paper, the Serbian Orthodox Church was one of the prime movers in the campaign to scapegoat Bosnian Muslims and justify the eventual ethnic cleansing and genocide that took place. He notes that the “role of the Church as protector of the Serbian nation gave the Church increasing social control, and with this power clergy fermented a xenophobic and bigoted attitude towards Muslims in former-Yugoslavia.”

The Church there was so involved in the eventual atrocities it actually dispatched Orthodox chaplins to bless “Serbian forces, such as the elite Panthers commando unit, which has been accused of committing numerous atrocities, before they set off on operations.” The Church would offer “Serb warriors communion without requiring confession,” giving them absolution for the crimes they were committing to create a “Greater Serbia.”

If the Serbian Orthodox Church’s role in the genocide in Bosnia has been forgotten by many, the role of Catholic churches in Rwanda’s genocide is likely even less known. During that mass slaughter, “Churches became sites of slaughter, carried out even at the altar.” One of the figures indicted in the genocide there was Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka, who used to wear a gun on his hip and colluded with a Hutu militia who massacred hundreds of people seeking shelter in his church. After the genocide concluded, various Catholic clergy actually helped church ministers who were guilty of murder flee the country and re-settle elsewhere, including one who allowed all of the men, women, and children hiding in his church to be killed when the church was bulldozed. The BBC actually ran a story in 2004 of a Rwandan girl who converted to Islam after the genocide because churches actively participated in it but mosques did not.

Today’s Christian Violence

Months before ISIS’s brutal beheadings were turned into Western headlines, the Associated Press ran a single paragraph on a beheading that took place in the Central African Republic. The paragraph noted, dryly, that a Christian militia there beheaded a young Muslim man, one of the last Muslims left in the village his colleagues had fled. The story ended up in a blurb on page A11 of The New York Times.

Human Rights Watch goes deeper into the situation in a brief published in December 2014:

The vast majority of Muslims in western parts of the country fled brutal attacks by Christian and animist anti-balaka militia in late 2013 and early 2014. Those who were not able to reach Cameroon or Chad became trapped in the enclaves, where they have spent months living in difficult conditions. UN officials, as well as African Union (AU) MISCA and French Sangaris peacekeepers supported evacuations in late 2013  and early 2014, helping thousands of Muslims to seek safety, including in Cameroon. […] By December  2014, an estimated 415,000 people, most of them Muslim, had fled the country and another 10,500 were protected by peacekeepers in a handful of western enclaves – Carnot, Yaloké, Boda, and Berbérati, among others.

In other words, what ISIS is doing to Yazidis and other groups it has deemed the enemy, Christian militias in the Central African Republic are doing to Muslims. We just aren’t hearing about it, because the victims aren’t as easy to relate to as ISIS’s western captives.

Even the ISIS televised executions of journalists aren’t particularly unique to Islamist terrorism. They’re copying a technique pioneered by Christian-led Mexican cartels, who for years beheaded and otherwise assassinated journalists who objected to their agenda. We rarely identify the cartels as Christian in nature, but there are deep financial links between Mexican churches and the cartel organizations.

No Monopoly On Violence

None of this is to argue that Christians are uniquely violent; that would be as wrong-headed as the Fox News argument about Islam’s insidiousness. It is just to point out that any large organization with enough people in it is capable of succumbing to tribalism, to the idea that our group is “good” and other groups are “bad” and should be feared, or disenfranchised, or even killed. That’s as true of Christianity as it is Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or any large-scale ideology or religion. President Obama wasn’t wrong; if anything, he understated his case.

Why You Shouldn’t Teach Your Children That Hell is Real

Why You Shouldn’t Teach Your Children That Hell is Real

The book is called Parenting Without God:

In the exclusive excerpt below, Dan explains why you shouldn’t teach children that Hell is real:

If teaching heaven is bad, teaching hell is downright mental child abuse. There is no way around this one. You are telling a child that for bad deeds done, or not worshipping the right (or any god), you are going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity. Pure torture, unimaginable pain and it is forever.

The myth of Hell needs to be destroyed faster than the myth of heaven by far. Children and countless adults fear any of their actions will result in them spending eternity in Hell. Why? It is such a childish and illogical idea. For starters, their almighty God created an evil angel, and instead of destroying him, gave him his own kingdom? And let’s not get started on the fact that if Satan is the one punishing the bad guys for their evil, doesn’t that make Satan the good guy? If Hell is for the most evil people in the world who listened to and or worshipped Satan, wouldn’t Satan be glad to have them? It simply doesn’t make sense and even Christians and other religious followers are deciding they don’t believe in Hell anymore. It seems that all the rest of their religion is true, but Hell sounds too mean, so that part is obviously just an allegory. So, just like the endless rape, murder, genocide and other atrocities of the Bible, let’s go ahead and cherry-pick Hell right out of it.

Now of course Hell gives many people a sense of justice. Hitler got the easy way out by killing himself and never answering for his crimes, yet many take comfort in the idea that he is in hell for eternity. For non-believers, that comfort does not exist, we take comfort in knowing he is not alive anymore to continue causing harm. We take comfort in learning from past mistakes and working to not repeat them. Pretending that we don’t have to worry about evil actions that seem foreign to us, because we believe someone else will handle it, is exactly what leads to such atrocities in the first place. It is always someone else’s responsibility.

…

I don’t think there will be much argument that Hell is one of the most vile or religious beliefs, so much so that it sickens me to think that people can claim to be good and god loving people who actually believe in, and are okay with, the idea that the invisible man they worship would torture their own children forever if they deny the existence of said invisible man. My very own grandparents believe I will burn in Hell and they believe that my son, their great grandchild, if he does not find a path to their God, will burn in hell. Where is the morality in that thinking?

The only morality you will find in this thinking is immorality! Anyone who believes someone will, or deserves everlasting suffering because they did not believe in the right god, or didn’t worship your god correctly, is not a moral person.

…

Now, to touch back on the child abuse aspect of Hell. This is a tricky area, because it is easy to label this abuse when you are on the outside looking in. However, if you really sit down and think about it, if you are a parent and you, with all your heart believe in Hell and believe people are sent there, wouldn’t it be child abuse to not tell your child about Hell? If you thought by keeping your mouth shut your child would burn in hellfire, it would make you a worse parent than trying to save your child’s eternity.

The reason this is important is that you will have encounters with countless parents who believe this. They will tell their child about hell, and they may discuss this with your child, or you. The incorrect action would be to attack them as abusive. I instead would suggest using a more Socratic method of questioning their beliefs and seeing if you can take them apart from the bottom up. These are the same methods we looked at when dissecting faith.

These parents have faith in Heaven and Hell and honestly believe they are doing the right thing by their child. If you wish to dig deeper into that and maybe help their child out, you will need to talk to the parents, learn what they believe, and work through how that baseless and harmful belief can be removed from their lives.

This sounds like a daunting task, and it is. It may not be a task you are up for, and even if you are you may never be successful, but I know some of you reading this right now know a child in a household that fears Hell more than anything on earth and needs someone, somehow to reach out their parents and remove this from their lives. We know their church won’t be doing it.

Parenting Without God is now available online. Check it out!

Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

By Yasmin Anwar

“Love thy neighbor” is preached from many a pulpit. But new research from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that the highly religious are less motivated by compassion when helping a stranger than are atheists, agnostics and less religious people.

Study finds highly religious people are less motivated by compassion to show generosity than are non-believers

In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were, according to the findings which are published in the most recent online issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

The results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion, researchers said. In the study, the link between compassion and generosity was found to be stronger for those who identified as being non-religious or less religious.

“Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not,” said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. “The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.”

Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.

While the study examined the link between religion, compassion and generosity, it did not directly examine the reasons for why highly religious people are less compelled by compassion to help others. However, researchers hypothesize that deeply religious people may be more strongly guided by a sense of moral obligation than their more non-religious counterparts.

“We hypothesized that religion would change how compassion impacts generous behavior,” said study lead author Laura Saslow, who conducted the research as a doctoral student at UC Berkeley.

Saslow, who is now a postdoctoral scholar at UC San Francisco, said she was inspired to examine this question after an altruistic, nonreligious friend lamented that he had only donated to earthquake recovery efforts in Haiti after watching an emotionally stirring video of a woman being saved from the rubble, not because of a logical understanding that help was needed.

“I was interested to find that this experience – an atheist being strongly influenced by his emotions to show generosity to strangers – was replicated in three large, systematic studies,” Saslow said.

In the first experiment, researchers analyzed data from a 2004 national survey of more than 1,300 American adults. Those who agreed with such statements as “When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them” were also more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as loaning out belongings and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train, researchers found.

When they looked into how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in such ways as giving money or food to a homeless person, non-believers and those who rated low in religiosity came out ahead: “These findings indicate that although compassion is associated with pro-sociality among both less religious and more religious individuals, this relationship is particularly robust for less religious individuals,” the study found.

In the second experiment, 101 American adults watched one of two brief videos, a neutral video or a heartrending one, which showed portraits of children afflicted by poverty. Next, they were each given 10 “lab dollars” and directed to give any amount of that money to a stranger. The least religious participants appeared to be motivated by the emotionally charged video to give more of their money to a stranger.

“The compassion-inducing video had a big effect on their generosity,” Willer said. “But it did not significantly change the generosity of more religious participants.”

In the final experiment, more than 200 college students were asked to report how compassionate they felt at that moment. They then played “economic trust games” in which they were given money to share – or not – with a stranger. In one round, they were told that another person playing the game had given a portion of their money to them, and that they were free to reward them by giving back some of the money, which had since doubled in amount.

Those who scored low on the religiosity scale, and high on momentary compassion, were more inclined to share their winnings with strangers than other participants in the study.

“Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people,” Willer said.

In addition to Saslow and Willer, other co-authors of the study are UC Berkeley psychologists Dacher Keltner, Matthew Feinberg and Paul Piff; Katharine Clark at the University of Colorado, Boulder; and Sarina Saturn at Oregon State University.

The study was funded by grants from UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center, UC Berkeley’s Center for the Economics and Demography of Aging, and the Metanexus Institute.

Afghan atheist to get asylum in Britain on religious grounds

 

Afghan atheist to get asylum in Britain on religious grounds – UK Politics – UK – The Independent.

Afghan atheist to get asylum in Britain on religious grounds

1 / 1

Taliban militants – there was a risk the man could face persecution in Afghanistan for having rejected Islam

AFP/Getty Images

A supervisor on the case, said: ‘The decision represents an important recognition that a lack of religious belief is in itself a thoughtful and seriously-held philosophical position’

American Atheists’ Dave Muscato: Christians don’t want equality, they want supremacy

American Atheists’ Dave Muscato: Christians don’t want equality, they want supremacy  

By David Ferguson

Dave Muscato, director of media relations for American Atheists, Inc., said that Christians who complain about persecution in the public square don’t actually want equality with other viewpoints, they want supremacy over them.

In an interview with Raw Story, Muscato responded to avowals by Louisiana public officials that prayer will continue in public forums by saying that Christian officials who foist their views on private citizens are in violation of the some of this country’s most sacred founding beliefs and of the U.S. Constitution.

“These Christians,” he continued, “they’ve had a monopoly for so long. They don’t want equality, they want privilege. And when they don’t get special rights, they cry that they’re being persecuted.”

On Wednesday, the Monroe News-Star published an article in which local public officials vowed that whatever the outcome of the current Supreme Court case involving public prayer by government officials, Ouachita Parish will continue to open public proceedings with a Christian prayer.

The men were discussing a case currently before the Supreme Court, Town of Greece v. Galloway, in which non-Christian plaintiffs are suing the city of Greece, NY to stop Christian prayers at the outset of city council meetings, public hearings and other government events.

Ouachita Parish Police Jury President Shane Smiley told the News-Star, “I will always vote for prayer. More important than it being a tradition, we make decisions that affect a lot of lives in the parish and need that guidance.”

“I don’t believe it’s inappropriate. I believe the jury as a whole believes an open invocation followed with the pledge of allegiance tells people who we are,” Smiley continued.

Jerry Hicks, president of the parish school board said, “Jesus Christ is our Lord. In the U.S., our god is God. I think prayer is essential. As a board, we’ll go after that if they try to take it away.”

Calling the Louisiana officials’ stance “a slap in the face to the Constitution,” Muscato said, “The United States does not have a ‘God.’ This is not a theocracy and we have freedom or religion here. People believe in all sorts of things.”

“If a public official feels like they need to pray in order to do their job, there’s no reason that they cannot do this before the meeting,” he said. “There’s nothing stopping them from doing that.”

If that official feels they need to impress upon the jurors or members of the public the importance and possible ramifications of their decisions, Muscato proposed, they can bring in experts in jury outcomes, budget ramifications or other issues. It would be infinitely preferable, he said, to approach the public business in a way that “doesn’t involve the supernatural.”

Muscato appeared on Fox News on Wednesday alongside Rabbi Aryeh Spero and Bill Donohue of The Catholic League. He told Raw Story that while appearances by his group on Fox often result in a torrent of angry, anti-atheist emails, “Every time we go on Fox, we get new members and we get new people donating to us because people see us and they hear the crazy things that people actually believe. They see how dangerous it is that these people have a national stage.”

Related articles

• The crooked path: Christians don’t want equality, they want supremacy (sott.net)
• Dave Muscato Becomes American Atheists’ New Public Relations Director (patheos.com)
• Air Force Academy Makes ‘So Help Me God’ Optional In Its Honor Oath (patheos.com)
• An atheist, a rabbi and Bill Donohue talk to Gretchen Carlson (rawstory.com)
• The Vatican is losing the war, and they know it (musasha.wordpress.com)
• Atheist group says Utah billboard companies fear Mormon church (richarddawkins.net)
• American Atheists’ Sarah Palin Billboard May Be Replaced By Ones Featuring Rick Perry and George W. Bush (patheos.com)
• Maddow: If you’re glad Cuccinelli lost, thank a woman (rawstory.com)
• Atheist group addresses Fox News flap: Nothing is more ‘irrational’ than religion (rawstory.com)
• American Atheists’ David Muscato: Christians don’t want equality, they want supremacy (rawstory.com)

Atheists can’t be Republicans | The secular have no place in today’s GOP — and libertarian atheists should realize that now

Atheists can’t be Republicans

The secular have no place in today’s GOP — and libertarian atheists should realize that now

By CJ Werleman

Enlarge (Credit: AP/Reuters/J. Scott Applewhite/Manuel Balce Ceneta/Jonathan Ernst/Stacy Bengs/WDG Photo via Shutterstock/Salon)

We atheists like to chastise the religious for their child-like belief in an imaginary friend, but, equally, the time has come for the atheist movement to grow up. It’s understood that the so-called new atheist movement began at the start of the new millennium with the mainstream emergence of luminaries Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others.

For much of the first decade of the new century, the atheist movement behaved like a curious child in search of meaning to its own existence. Now that the child is a teenager on its way to adulthood, it needs to start acting like a grown up. The atheist movement comprises more than 2,000 groups and organizations in the U.S. today, but the movement, in composition and purpose, has failed to establish a coherent cause outside of validating non-belief and offering platitudes towards protecting the separation of church and state. Another thing one notices with the atheist movement is the fact it is predominantly upwardly middle-class, white and male. Sikivu Hutchinson writes, in her essay “Prayer Warriors and Freethinkers”: “If mainstream freethought and humanism continue to reflect the narrow cultural interests of white elites who have disposable income to go to conferences then the secular movement is destined to remain marginal and insular.”

The movement has an image problem. An image that isn’t helped by the ceaseless and over-simplified fear-mongering over Islamic terrorism from the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins — rhetoric that not only ignores our long history of foreign policy blunders in the Middle East, but also echoes the neo-conservatives, the Israel lobby and the entire right-wing echo chamber. Nathan Lean, author of “The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims,” writes, “The New Atheists became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason.”

It’s time for the movement to address bigger and real issues, and the biggest issue of our time is income inequality. Of all the developed nations, the U.S. has the most unequal distribution of income. In the past decade, 95 percent of all economic gains have gone to the top 1 percent. A mere 400 individuals own one-half of the entire nation’s wealth. Meanwhile, median household income keeps falling, and our poverty levels resemble that of the Great Depression era. In other words, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is being decimated. Atheists like to talk about building a better world, one that is absent of religiosity in the public square, but where are the atheist groups on helping tackle the single biggest tear in the fabric of our society — wealth disparity?

They are nowhere. Its absence on the most pressing moral issue of our time makes it difficult for the movement to establish meaningful partnerships with other moral communities. To remain white, middle class, intellectually smug and mostly apolitical will not only serve to alienate atheism from minorities and the poor, but will also ensure it remains a politically impotent movement that is incapable of building a better America. Growing up means less time and money spent on self-righteous billboard campaigns, and, instead, more resources allocated to fighting the political conditions that have caused this nation’s middle class and infrastructure to resemble that of a hyper-religious Third World nation.

Christopher Hitchens wrote that the intellectual advantage of atheism is its ability to reject unprovable assertions on face value. It’s why we don’t believe in the supernatural. Equally, it’s why we shouldn’t believe in a myth that is causing greater harm than creationism — the myth of trickle-down economics, which remains the economic blueprint for today’s Republican Party, despite the world’s leading economists lampooning it as an abject failure. In the four decades that followed FDR’s New Deal, our middle class became the envy of the world. In an op-ed titled “Abject Failure of Reaganomics,” Robert Parry writes, “It was the federal government that essentially created the Great American Middle Class — from the New Deal policies of the 1930s through other reforms of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, from Social Security to Wall Street regulation to labor rights to the GI Bill to the Interstate Highway System to the space program’s technological advances to Medicare and Medicaid to the minimum wage to civil rights.” But then came the period of Reagan’s holy trinity — privatization, deregulation, and free trade. Now here we are today — facing the largest economic crisis since the 1930s. Atheists are secularists, and a secularist cannot be a member of today’s Republican Party. You’re either one or the other.

You cannot be both. Now, I am acutely aware that a great number of atheists identify with the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, but this is comical. A lack of evidence is why atheists don’t believe in God. But to believe in libertarianism is in itself an act of faith, because libertarianism has not only never been tried anywhere, but an overwhelming number of economists reject the philosophy as little more than “capitalism with the gloves off” — a condition that would only exacerbate the winner-takes-all society we have today. If an atheist is looking for political evidence, the evidence we have is that not only is today’s Republican Party a theocratic sponsor, it’s also a party that has been proven wrong on just about everything in the past three decades or more: from evolution to climate change, trickle-down economics, that the Iraqis would greet us as liberators, that the Bush tax cuts would lead to jobs. It didn’t. It added $3 trillion to the debt.

They were wrong that the stimulus would trigger inflation, that austerity stimulates an economy and that universal healthcare is worse than slavery. It’s time for the atheist movement to get off the political sidelines. It’s time to truly help this country become a better place to live for all its citizens. The recent Values Voter Summit demonstrated that the likely 2016 GOP frontrunners and its base wish to transform America’s secular state into a tyrannical theocracy — a nirvana absent gays, liberals, immigrants, Muslims and science books. If the atheist movement doesn’t evolve into a politically agitated, unified and mobilized Secular Left, then the Christian Right might just get its way. In fighting for truly meaningful social justice, such as income equality and the rights of minorities, the movement can form partnerships with communities that share common causes. For instance, building a bridge with certain religious communities that are equally concerned with fighting against class inequality and social injustice.

This would broaden the appeal of the atheism movement, and might just get people to like us a little more. Walter Bristol, an atheist interfaith activist, wrote, “Economic inequality is one of the most imminent issues facing Western society today. Any progressive movement that chooses to dismiss it is and will be rightfully dismissed themselves.” Atheists are the fastest growing minority in the country. We now have the critical mass to shape elections and policy. Either we seize our potential political power, thus acting like the grown up in the room, or we can continue to focus on the ‘pettier’ or issues, thus continuing to act like a petulant child.
CJ Werleman is the author of Crucifying America, and God Hates You. Hate Him Back. You can follow him on Twitter:  @cjwerleman

Related articles

• Why Atheists Can’t Be Republicans (alternet.org)
• Atheists can’t be Republicans (salon.com)
• Is Obama a secret atheist? Richard Dawkins thinks so (examiner.com)
• Richard Dawkins Discusses Science, Religion, and Pope Francis on Real Time with Bill Maher (patheos.com)
• Richard Dawkins Talks Religion, Science, and Why He Thinks Obama’s an Atheist with Bill Maher (mediaite.com)
• atheism in Egypt (angryarab.net)
• Why Oprah’s Anti-Atheist Bias Hurts So Much (psychologytoday.com)
• atheism in Egypt (angryarab.blogspot.com)
• Atheists can’t be Republicans (richarddawkins.net)

Gnōthi Seauton (Know Thyself)

Gnōthi Seauton (Know Thyself)

by john zande

h/t http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/gnothi-seauton-know-thyself/

Atheism to Defeat Religion By 2038

Nigel Barber

Biopsychologist; Blogger, Psychology Today’s ‘The Human Beast’

Atheism to Defeat Religion By 2038

Countries with the best standard of living are turning atheist. That shift offers a glimpse into the world’s future.

Religious people are annoyed by claims that belief in God will go the way of horse transportation, and for much the same reason, specifically an improved standard of living.

The view that religious belief will give way to atheism is known as the secularization thesis.  The specific version that I favor (1) is known as the existential security hypothesis.  The basic idea is that as people become more affluent, they are less worried about lacking for basic necessities, or dying early from violence or disease.  In other words they are secure in their own existence.  They do not feel the need to appeal to supernatural entities to calm their fears and insecurities.

The notion that improving living conditions are associated with a decline in religion is supported by a mountain of evidence (1,2,3).

That does not prevent some serious scholars, like political scientist Eric Kaufmann (4), from making the opposite case that religious fundamentalists will outbreed the rest of us.  Yet, noisy as they can be, such groups are tiny minorities of the global population and they will become even more marginalized as global prosperity increases and standards of living improve.

Moreover, as religious fundamentalists become economically integrated, young women go to work and produce smaller families, as is currently happening for Utah’s Mormons.

The most obvious approach to estimating when the world will switch over to being majority atheist is based on economic growth.  This is logical because economic development is the key factor responsible for secularization.  In deriving this estimate, I used the nine most godless countries as my touchstone (excluding Estonia as a formerly communist country).

The countries were Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  These nine countries averaged out at the atheist transition in 2004 (5) with exactly half of the populations disbelieving in God.   Their gross domestic product (GDP) averaged $29,822 compared to $10,855 for the average country in the world.  How long will it take before the world economy has expanded sufficiently that the GDP of the average country has caught up to the average for the godless countries in 2004?
Using the average global growth rate of GDP for the past 30 years of 3.33 percent (based on International Monetary Fund data from their website), the atheist transition would occur in 2035.

Belief in God is not the only relevant measure of religion, of course.  A person might believe in God in a fairly superficial way without religion affecting his or her daily life.  One way of assessing the depth of religious commitment is to ask survey participants whether they think that religion is important in their daily lives as the Gallup Organization has done in worldwide nationally representative surveys.

If fewer than 50 percent of the population agreed that religion was important to them, then the country has effectively crossed over to a secular majority.  The godless countries by religiosity were Spain, South Korea, Canada, Switzerland, Uruguay, Germany and France.  At a growth rate of 3.33 percent per year it would be 2041 before the average country in the world would be at an equivalent level of affluence as these godless nations.

If national wealth drives secularization, the global population will cross an atheist threshold where the majority see religion as unimportant by 2041.

Averaging across the two measures of atheism, the entire world population would cross the atheist threshold by about 2038 (average of 2035 for disbelief and 2041 for religiosity).  Although 2038 may seem improbably fast, this requires only a shift of approximately 1 percent per year whether in religiosity or belief in God.  Using the Human Development Index as a clock suggests an even earlier arrival for the atheist transition (1).

Is the loss of religious belief something fear?  Contrary to the claims of religious leaders, Godless countries are highly moral nations with an unusual level of social trust, economic equality, low crime and a high level of civic engagement (5).  We could do with some of that.

Sources 1. Barber, N. (2012). Why atheism will replace religion: The triumph of earthly pleasures over pie in the sky. E-book, available at: http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Will-Replace-Religion-ebook/dp/B00886ZSJ6/  2. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3. Barber, N. (2011).  A Cross-National test of the uncertainty hypothesis of religious belief Cross-Cultural Research, 45, 318-333. 4. Kaufmann, E. (2010). Shall the religious inherit the earth? London: Profile books. 5. Zuckerman, P. (2008). Society without God: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment. New York: New York University Press.

Related articles

• Religion to disappear by 2041 claims new study (sott.net)
• Religion to Disappear By 2041 Claims New Study | Las Vegas Guardian Express (richarddawkins.net)
• God and religion replaced by possessions by 2041 says Irish biopsychologist (irishcentral.com)
• Open season on atheists at the Torygraph: two new attacks on heathens (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
• Penn Jillette Really Loves Books About Atheism… (patheos.com)
• Could Religion Completely Disappear by 2041? (scienceworldreport.com)

Study Indicates Atheists Are Better People

Study Indicates Atheists Are Better People

“Numerous studies reveal that atheists and secular people most certainly maintain strong values, beliefs, and opinions. But more significantly, when we actually compare the values and beliefs of atheists and secular people to those of religious people, the former are markedly less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less anti-Semitic, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less close-minded, and less authoritarian.”

See here:-

Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

Related articles

• All Children are Born Atheists (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)
• Atheism, Defined (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)
• Atheists in the Heartland (atheistrev.com)
• How To Know If You Are An Atheist (atheistrev.com)

Related articles

• Atheism, Defined (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)
• All Children are Born Atheists (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)
• Calm Atheist Versus Crazy, Shrieking Catholic Theist Harpy (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)

All Children are Born Atheists

All Children are Born Atheists

Anyone who understands the definition of atheism must acknowledge that all children are born atheists, including those born to Christian parents. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of acceptance of the theistic belief claim (i.e., some god or gods exist). A theist is one who believes that god(s) exist; an atheist is one who does not share this belief. The newborn child cannot even entertain such possibilities and thus lacks theistic belief. Atheism is the default position, and this is where we all begin.

In order for Christians to argue against the reality that all children are born atheists, they must distort the meaning of atheism. They must convince themselves and their audience that atheism is a religion, a philosophy, or a worldview. They claim that atheism is an explicit repudiation of religion and that it involves faith that no gods exist. Such distortions in the meaning of atheism allow them to claim that children cannot be born atheist because atheism requires the same sort of deliberate choice required by religious belief.Atheism is not a belief system but lack of acceptance of one particular belief. It requires no faith; it is the absence of faith. It is the null hypothesis, the default condition, the natural starting point for each of us.

But why must Christians distort the meaning of atheism at all? Why should they even care if their children are born atheists, especially when it is likely that they will begin brainwashing them at an early age? There are many reasons, ranging from a need to see the child as connected to them through the manner they consider most important (i.e., religion) to the harsh implications of infant mortality to their belief system.

To expand on this latter point, consider the Christian parent whose child dies before the child is capable of forming the cognitions necessary to comprehend theistic belief. According to this parent’s own Christian doctrine, this child is likely destined for hell. This is where non-believers go, and this child is clearly a non-believer. The Catholics toyed with limbo as a way out, but the evangelical Protestants now engaging in America’s “culture wars” never really warmed to this idea. Even theism will be insufficient for such a parent, as a personal relationship with Jesus is thought to be the only vehicle for salvation.

It should be remembered that Christians have created this doctrine for themselves and should be solely responsible for unraveling the many conundrums it presents. Distorting atheism is not an acceptable way out of the mess they have made.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/all-children-are-born-atheists.html

Related articles

• Ask Richard: Atheist Teen Endures an Oppressive, Cultish Family (patheos.com)
• Why Atheists Are More Intelligent Than the Religious (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)
• Room for Debate: Is Atheism a Religion? (nytimes.com)
• What happens at an atheist church? (bbc.co.uk)
• Can a Religious School Properly Teach Students About Atheism? (patheos.com)
• Dave’s Mailbag: Atheism, defined (musasha.wordpress.com)

Calm Atheist Versus Crazy, Shrieking Catholic Theist Harpy

Watch the video!

Calm Atheist Versus Crazy, Shrieking Catholic Theist Harpy

Related articles

• There’s Nothing Wrong with Being an Atheist, Congresswoman (patheos.com)
• My take: ‘Atheist’ isn’t a dirty word, congresswoman (religion.blogs.cnn.com)
• Moral Superiority: Atheists versus Theists (atheistethicist.blogspot.com)
• 20 Percent of Americans Don’t Believe in God – So Why is Our Congress So Religious? (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)
• Theist Writes | What Kind of People are Atheists? Behind The Scenes At an Atheist Conference (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)

Christian Guest Calls Rape Victim “Evil,” Gets Reamed Out by Atheist Host

Christian Guest Calls Rape Victim “Evil,” Gets Reamed Out by Atheist Host

“Goodbye, you piece of shit!” host says to caller.

The below confrontation between an atheist host, Matt Dillahunty (who co-hosts “The Atheist Experince with Tracie Harris,) and his fundamentalist Christian caller revolved around the caller’s belief that everyone–because of the concept of universal sinfulness–is “evil” including a young rape victim.

The caller objected to the host’s calling a young rape victim “innocent” and declared her to be as evil as all humans, at which point Dillahunty excalimed “Goodbye, you piece of shit! You know what? I was a better Christian than you when I was a Christian, and still am.”

Related articles

• New on AlterNet: Courting the Votes of the Non-Religious (bigthink.com)
• Atheists Face Death In 7 Countries (theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com)
• “Christian” Advocates That Child Rape Victim Is “Evil” – Seriously What Is Going on With These People? (bonjublog.com)
• London’s First Atheist Church Opens Tomorrow (gawker.com)
• Matt Dillahunty & Tracie Harris show how to handle a Christian (freethoughtblogs.com)
• ‘Atheist Experience’ TV Host Shocked By Caller’s Statement About Child Rape (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• WATCH: Atheist TV Host Shocked By Caller’s Statement About Child Rape (huffingtonpost.com)
• Atheist TV host boots ‘piece of sh*t’ Christian for calling raped girl ‘evil’ (rawstory.com)
• ‘Black Atheists’ is Considered Segregation: O’RLY?! (blackatheists.wordpress.com)

Atheists Face Death In 7 Countries

Punishment for Atheism in 7 Countries: Death

And atheists don’t enjoy full rights in Arkansas: report

Posted By Kate Seamons

            Choosing not to believe can be a deadly choice in seven of the world’s countries, according to a new report out today. It found that atheists can be executed for their views in Afghanistan, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. Reuters notes that the report didn’t actually catalog any recent executions for atheism; but that’s likely because the charge is typically absorbed by other charges, say the researchers. Denial of “the right to exist” isn’t the only woe suffered by atheists per the report, which outlines other persecution and challenges they face around the world:

• In countries like Bangladesh, Egypt, and Kuwait, it’s illegal (and dubbed “blasphemous”) to publish atheist views.
• A number of countries, including Malaysia, force all citizens to register as a member of an officially recognized religion in order to obtain documents necessary for accessing everything from education to medical treatment.
• The West doesn’t get off scot-free, with the report noting that many secular countries give deferential treatment to Christian churches. It cites the “pride of place” given to the Orthodox Church on state occasions in Greece, and Britain’s automatic bestowal of seats in parliament’s upper house on bishops of the Church of England.
• Closer to home, atheists are actually barred from holding public office in seven US states; in Arkansas, atheists are prohibited from serving as a witness at a trial.

Related articles

• ‘Like lesser Americans’: Atheists face discrimination, persecution, report says (worldnews.nbcnews.com)
• Atheists around world suffer persecution and discrimination, report shows (uk.reuters.com)
• Grieving as an Atheist (richarddawkins.net)
• A Second Atheist Billboard Vandalized Near Roanoke, Virginia (patheos.com)
• Atheists around world suffer persecution, discrimination – report (updatednews.ca)
• Seven Countries Have Death Penalty For Atheism (disinfo.com)
• The Countries Where They Kill You for Being an Atheist (patheos.com)
• Punishment for Atheism in 7 Countries: Death (newser.com)

Atheists Are Better for Politics Than Believers. Here’s Why

Atheists are better for politics than believers. Here’s why

As my term as British Humanist Association president comes to an end, a few words of advice to my successor, Jim Al-Khalili

Polly Toynbee

Illustration by Noma Bar

‘If you’re not religious, for God’s sake say so,” we implored, and many did. Over a quarter of the population registered as non-believers: more might have done were the census question unambiguous about whether it meant cultural background or personal belief. My term as president of the British Humanist Association ends this month, but gladly I hand over to Jim Al-Khalili, the distinguished professor of physics, writer, broadcaster and explainer of science. With atheism as the second largest block, he will be in a stronger position to see that unbelievers get a better hearing.

Rows over gay marriage and women bishops bewilder most people. With overwhelming popular support for both, how can abstruse theology and unpleasant prejudice cause such agitation at Westminster and in the rightwing press? Politics looks even more out of touch when obscure doctrine holds a disproportionate place in national life.

The religions still frighten politicians, because despite small numbers in the pews, synagogues and mosques, they are organised and vocal when most of the rest of society lacks community voice or influence. Labour was craven, endlessly wooing faith groups – David Blunkett wishing he could “bottle the magic” of faith schools.

With a third of state schools religious in this most secular country, Michael Gove not only swells their number but lets them discriminate as they please in admissions. As he is sending a bible to every English school, the BHA is fundraising to send out its own Young Atheist’s Handbook to school libraries. Government departments are outsourcing more services to faith groups in health, hospice, community and social care.

But of all the battles Jim Al-Khalili confronts, the most urgent is the right to die. Powerful religious forces block attempts to let the dying end their lives when they choose. Tony Nicklinson was the most public face of thousands in care homes and hospitals condemned to what he called “a living nightmare” by 26 bishops and other religious lords who say only God can dispose – the Bishop of Oxford decreed: “We are not autonomous beings.” The public supports the right to die, but many more will drag themselves off to a bleak Swiss clinic before the religions let us die in peace.

Sensing the ebbing tide of faith since the last census, the blowback against unbelievers has been remarkably violently expressed. Puzzlingly, we are routinely referred to as “aggressive atheists” as if non-belief itself were an affront. But we are with Voltaire, defending to the death people’s right to believe whatever they choose, but fighting to prevent them imposing their creeds on others.

The Abrahamic faiths, with their disgust for sex and women, still exert deep cultural influence. When David Cameron claimed “we are a Christian country”, there are certainly enough cultural relics in attitudes towards women and gays. Baroness Warsi’s letter expressing alarm that schools might teach gay marriage equality causes tremors of that sexual disgust branded into the souls of all three major monotheistic faiths. Are there many gay couples perverse enough to yearn to be married inside religions that abhor them? Humanists can offer them heartfelt celebrations.

In the Lords this week, by a whisker, section 5 of the Public Order Act was amended to remove the offence of using “insulting words or behaviour within hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harm, alarm or distress thereby”.

An extraordinary alliance of extreme religions wanting the right to preach fire and brimstone against gays joined with free thinkers wanting the right to be rude about religions. Liberty and the Christian Institute were on the same side against the government, which was defeated. Now the Commons will have to decide. Some religions argue they have a God-given right not to be caused offence, to give legal weight to fatwas against those who offend their prophets. But in the rough and tumble of free speech, no one can be protected against feeling offended. Jim Al-Khalili can expect all manner of attacks, but no protection for his sensibilities.

For instance, he might take offence at the charge that without God, unbelievers have no moral compass. Hitler and Stalin were atheists, that’s where it leads. We can ripost with religious atrocities, Godly genocides or the Inquisition, but that’s futile. Wise atheists make no moral claims, seeing good and bad randomly spread among humanity regardless of faith. Humans do have a hardwired moral sense, every child born with an instinct for justice that makes us by nature social animals, not needing revelations from ancient texts. The idea that morality can only be frightened into us artificially, by divine edict, is degrading.

The new president will confront another common insult: atheists are desiccated rationalists with nothing spiritual in their lives, poor shrivelled souls lacking transcendental joy and wonder. But in awe of the natural world of physics, he’ll have no trouble with that. Earthbound, there is enough wonder in the magical realms of human imagination, thought, dream, memory and fantasy where most people reside for much of their waking lives. There is no emotional or spiritual deficiency in rejecting creeds that stunt and infantalise the imagination.

Liberated by knowing the here and now is all there is, humanists are optimists, certain that our destiny rests in our own hands. That’s why most humanists are natural social democrats, not conservatives.

Related articles

• Is There Really a ‘Christmas Schism’ in the Atheist Movement? (patheos.com)
• Stanford gets a chaplain for atheists (sfgate.com)
• Anti-Creationists need to think about tactics (paulbraterman.wordpress.com)
• Why this atheist celebrates Christmas | Jim Al-Khalili (guardian.co.uk)
• Atheists are better for politics than believers. Here’s why (richarddawkins.net)
• Jim Al-Khalili: ‘I’m a cuddly atheist. I don’t need to tell my mum her faith is stupid’ (independent.co.uk)
• How the Godless and Believers Celebrate Christmas Together (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Atheists are better for politics than believers. Here’s why | Polly Toynbee (guardian.co.uk)
• Should the President of a Humanist Organization Be More Aggressive? (patheos.com)