The interfaith movement is beginning to rack up successes. While outbursts of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (among other expressions of prejudice against religious communities) are nothing new, the growing and remarkably diverse chorus of voices trying to drown bigots out certainly is.
To take but one recent example, when the Park51 Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan was subjected to undue criticism this past summer, the groups that gathered behind closed doors to support its besmirched but beloved leaders included atheists, Jews, Christians, Muslims and more. It was heartening -- as were the rallies led by Religious Freedom USA and New York Neighbors for American Values, which drew thousands to the streets to support the rights of all religious communities to assemble on private property. You could feel the interfaith movement surging forward on its remarkable course.
But I am uncertain, if not outright skeptical, that members of the interfaith movement would equally protect non-religious communities that come under similar scrutiny. To take a personal (and rather confessional) example, when a friend was excluded from an interfaith peace-building initiative because of being non-religious, people told him they were sorry. But nobody refused to continue participating in the group. It just didn't seem like a reason to protest the decision or leave the group altogether.
I am among those guilty of not speaking up -- cowed by diffusion of responsibility and the glow of opportunity that the group provided. I am certain, based on the numerous stories my humanist and atheist friends have told me, that this was not an isolated occurrence, nor an unusually cowardly reaction on my part. Yet it is something for which I am still performing teshuvah -- answering as a Jew and human being for wrongdoing to my friend, in this case through wrongful inaction.
Why is it that when someone criticizes or excludes atheists, it feels like the interfaith movement forgets its identity, if only for a split second? Why is it that well-meaning interfaith leaders defy their identities and fail to speak out against those who threaten or undermine the status of the non-religious? Individually, we may comfort our friends, but by and large we are not sticking our necks out, writing op-eds, holding protests and publicly condemning those who single out the non-religious.
In part, I would suggest that members of the interfaith movement have not yet developed reflexes for protecting the non-religious. There is somewhat less of a history of hatred for atheists in the West (and even less education about the hatred that has been made manifest), so it does not always register in our minds when someone speaks ill of atheists in a way that it would if someone spoke similarly about people of a particular religious group.
But guilt for the repeated historical failure of Western countries to protect religious minorities is hardly an excuse for inaction in the present to protect the non-religious. It is time that we, most especially in the interfaith movement, recognize, denounce and speak out against anti-atheist bigotry.
Admittedly, many religious individuals feel intellectually and theologically challenged by atheists. But this challenge is one we must greet and learn from, rather than respond to with aggression, passive and active alike. If God is truly powerful, non-believers can hardly break our belief, much less the Divine we believe in. If God is loving, then why should we hate -- or ignore hatred directed towards others? If God is a Creator, how can we allow others to speak ill of the atheists and non-believers God gave life to? Non-belief is a reality for hundreds of millions of people around the world, and the religious can hardly condemn atheists without running into contradictions rendered by their faith.
If religious affiliation is a protected category in our laws, our minds and our actions, so too must non-affiliation and atheism. The interfaith movement must lead the way, and so too must its believing members. They -- we -- cannot allow this double-standard to persist.
Follow Joshua Stanton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dialogueeditor
Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: Christian Civility: The Test of Intra-Faith Relations
Interfaith Dialogue Must Include Atheists at Parliament of the ...
Reach out to those without faith, too | Keith Kahn-Harris ...
Beyond the Atheism-Religion Divide | Program Particulars [Speaking ...
Accept reality on ITS terms, cuz I CAN guarantee you, reality will NOT accept yours.
Alas, he failed to mention that there are also "atheists."
Our country really does need to recognize that the "non-affiliated" are also an important group of people in this country. I'm guessing that there are more atheist citizens in this country than Hindu.
Thank you for reminding us of the roots of our faiths. There is nothing to fear.
With the missionaries, they shouldn't even come to my house and interrupt my dinner to begin with.
It isn't a matter of "just grow up". It is a matter of common courtesy of religious people to understand that not everyone shares their beliefs and to respect people accordingly. We shouldn't be asked to come to church (though if we get asked once, I'd let it go) and we shouldn't be bothered by missionaries.
The fact that you would respond to this by "just grow up" is intolerant. Really, you don't get it.
One the flip side, believers need to acknowledge the inherent incompatibility of theocracy and democracy. As explained by philosopher John Searle; when the law is based on religious doctrine, any criticism or opposition to Government becomes blasphemy. Thus a totalitarian dictatorship inevitably results. Thus we witnessed the Third Reich and Soviet Union. Only the our doctrine of > will keep up from suffering a similar fate.
Evolution is just a scientific theory, not a political manifesto. The Third Reich was not based on science but on a misunderstand of science as some twisted, sick version of evolution. Moreover, if the Third Reich had been based on science, that would not invalidate the veracity of the science. Science is to be judged only on the evidence, not on the possibility that it may be unpleasant.
Regardless, evolution (including so-called macro-evolution) is back up by a large body of evidence. Please read Jerry Coyne's or Richard Dawkins' books outlining and explaining some of this evidence. Please go to a natural history museum (I personally have and the evidence is astounding).
Keep up the good, though.
Peace
Chris
The whole point of the ads was to let other atheists in the area know that they are not alone and that there are many organized groups of like minded people in the area, and to help them get connected.
Thanks for the extra publicity.
Atheists, agnostics and non-religious want to be a part of the discussion, part of the plan and part of the solution.
Who you assume the fairy godfather gave life to!
So, non-believers, all of a sudden, need someone to stick up for them? Why? Could it be that the author, and many others, feel that it is their duty, in some way, to protect us! Laughable!
My point is, this has to do with more than just the interfaith movement. Truly standing up for atheists includes visible activism on church-state separation. There should be rallies over "under God" in the Pledge and the Illinois Silent School Prayer. It should include publicly standing up for atheists when they get bashed for a billboard saying "Good without God? Join the club." The article didn't mention any serious activism along these lines.
The interfaith movement has something that atheist organizations don't, they have people of multiple faiths. They have a better opportunity of mobilizing people of multiple faiths into supporting atheists on their various issues. Unfortunately, I hear far more about Rob Sherman or the FFRF or Richard Dawkins doing atheist activism than interfaith doing substantial activism on behalf of atheists.
This gets back to what I was saying about the interfaith movement seeming insulated. It seems like if the interfaith movement knows it did something, they call it an accomplishment. They don't realize that outside of the interfaith movement, their activism goes unnoticed and problems like Islamophobia that they supposedly accomplished something on are still big problems.
I don't need to do homework. The interfaith movement needs to do a better job at activism.
We share so many things; reverence of Pirates, noodles, meatballs, a Heaven that has a beer volcano (plus the unmentionable factory) and of course the advantage of The Truth.