Simplistic and Orientalist: How Atheists Attack Religion

Over the past month a refreshed debate between atheism and Islam has been raging in the Anglosphere. While hardly new—Atheists have been intellectually attacking religion in general and Islam in particular since 9/11—this debate has intensified since the exploits of the “Islamic State” have given rise to a new brand of religiously-inspired violence which has terrified much of the West. Bill Maher, Reza Aslan, Ben Affleck and Sam Harris have been the most high-profile participants in this debate by shouting past each other on television.

But while religion genuinely has much to answer for regarding its place in and contribution to the modern world, much of the criticism by the so-called New Atheists has been simplistic and Orientalist—offending many and leaving others unconvinced.

An atheistic point of view

For those who view religion and religious belief as outsiders, it is clear that there are many troubling features of religiosity which seem antiquated at best and dangerous at worst. For example, one of the many objections to religion by Western seculars is the jailing of people like Jabeur Mejri or the repeated attacks and calls for murder against Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. Both men merely posted depictions of the Prophet Mohamed. Indeed, the mocking or disrespect of any idea should never be met by the threat of physical or legal force. The schoolyard rule remains true here: words are fought with words, and only physical attacks, or the imminent threat thereof, warrant physical responses.

When attempting to discredit religiously based actions, atheists generally ignore arguments of moral relativism and instead argue in favor of universal human rights: protections for free expression, blasphemy, apostasy, and other actions which have been claimed to violate various religious traditions such as homosexuality and a denunciation of gender roles. While some see religion as the source of the conception of universal human rights, atheists find no need for religion here either, and instead find secular sources of human rights.

In the face of violent actions which are claimed to be religiously motivated, many mainstream theists (not to use moderate) attempt to distance themselves from the perpetrators thereof. However, when peaceful adherents of a religion state that violent adherents are not actually following the faith, they are engaging in a no true Scotsman argument which merely pits their interpretation of ancient texts against that of their co-religionists, whom often similarly denounces the pacifism or tolerance of the mainstream.

Reza Aslan tells us that often both the violent and peaceful versions of religion can often be validated by interpretations of the same religious text. As such, deciding who ‘truly’ represents the religion is often a fruitless and impossible task. In defending religion, Aslan states,

People of faith insert their values into their Scriptures, reading them through the lens of their own cultural, ethnic, nationalistic and even political perspectives... If you are a violent misogynist, you will find plenty in your scriptures to justify your beliefs. If you are a peaceful, democratic feminist, you will also find justification in the scriptures for your point of view.

So the pious judge religion by their previously-held views, they do not judge their views by their previously-held religion. If this is so, then it is clear that secular foundations of understanding what is right and wrong are the initial sources of our values, and only later do we mold religion to fit that understanding. It has been clear for some time that religion is not a source of scientific knowledge, and Aslan seems to unavoidably imply that it is not a source of ethics, either.

Nietzsche may not have killed God, but Darwin and now Aslan have certainly neutered him, rendering impotent his follower’s claims of wisdom and social value.

Over simplified argumentation

Despite this seemingly strong intellectual foundation from which atheists can argue, their talking points have undermined their positions by being blatantly simplistic.

For example, whether reading about conflicts in the vast majority of human history or the contemporary Arab world, separating politics, religion, and economics is not only difficult, but it renders analysis nonsensical. Attempting to blame this war or that conflict on religion—or even claiming that certain atrocities would not have occurred sans religious motivation—is an illusory argument which engages in counter-factuals and an anachronistic view of human social organization, as most societies have not viewed these concepts as inherently separate. When even the “Islamic State” imposes a claimed “Islamic customs duty” at the edge of their controlled territory, the goals seem more financial than faithful.

Attempting to remove mixed and alternative motivations like individual variables in a physics experiment shows how much more complicated the human world can be than the physical world. If religion provided the only necessary motivation toward violence, then all religious people would be violent. Once another variable is admitted, the confidence in our conclusions must be questioned: is religion the driver and politics or nationalism or patriotism or xenophobia the passenger, or vice versa? This ambiguity shows that it is supremely foolish to conclude that religion is the source of all of our troubles.

Religion is not ‘off the hook’ for providing an excuse to systematically oppress women, nonbelievers, homosexuals, and others for a majority of human history, however. It simply must reasonably share the blame with other human fears, desires, motivations, and institutions.

The original sin of Orientalism

More insidious than poor reasoning is Orientalism. Herein the term will be used to mean a Western tendency and attempt to simplify, other, and impose external interpretations on Islam. While figures like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Maher have attacked Christianity and religion in general, Islam has been somewhat of an obsession of these vocal critics.

Harris argues that Islam is simply different: its falsehoods more false, its dangers more dangerous. Harris’s contention that modern terrorism flows from Islam dances dangerously close to belonging on Fox News—and is simply incorrect. But the criticism does not stop at an association with terrorism. “Islam breeds theocracy!” many Western atheists have claimed. Any more than Christianity? The goals and methods of Christians have been, both historically and presently, little different than the goals and methods of Muslims, and 34% of Americans want the United States to be a Christian theocracy. While the support for theocracy may be higher in many majority Muslim countries, it’s important to note that the difference is numerical, not categorical. Up until the 1960s Catholic Church had no requirement that non-Catholics be given rights to practice their religion, a guarantee found in the Quran and many historical interpretations thereof (though subject to the problems of interpretation mentioned above). “Islam is anti-democratic!” other Westerners have claimed. Less democratic than Catholicism, with its patriarchal, trans-national hierarchy which emphasizes lay obedience? Many questioned whether Catholic countries could become democratic back when they were the popular group to be othered.

Make no mistake, however: It is specifically Islam which is the object of derision from the New Atheists, not simply non-Western religions. Ignored has been the violence of Buddhists against Muslims, as well as Hindu attacks in India against Hindu female -Muslim male weddings. Just as religious people can justify their motives with religion, these prominent atheists justify their xenophobia toward Islam with critical argumentation. Islam is historically no aberration with respect to other religions on issues of tolerance and violence. Many of its adherents, however, have been the victims of historical and structural violence against their identity groups, the results of which they deal with daily. While there is no acceptable justification for offensive violent action, it is important to understand that this is a background to some of the violence in the Muslim world. Having empathy can allow one to see the broader social and political context in which violence in the name of Islam sometimes occurs. Given similar political and historical backgrounds, violence would find a similar audience within our society, as well. Such empathy would allow us to work with Muslims to mitigate the causes of these exacerbations of violence instead of only addressing their symptoms. But because we live in a post-9/11 world where many Anglophones are unfamiliar with the anthropological context of Islam, the religion of a growing number of those with whom we share our communities, attacking the entire Muslim world is an easy way to sell books and gain applause.

Suggestions for future discussions

Where does the conversation go from here, then? Here are four suggestions for analyzing the role of religion in society and dialogue between atheists and theists:

First, social commentators must take theists at their word when they state religion is the motivation for their actions. Yes, religion is a scapegoat for many, but to impose onto an actor our external ideas of what are his or her real motivations are is simply another form of imperialism. If someone is willing to kill or die for a belief, who are we to not take that person at his or her word, and to simply make presumptions about authenticity and intentions? If the societal value of religion is strong enough to inspire others to commit violence and act immorally, it is a social force worth critiquing. Nonetheless, be mindful about what implicit motivations might also exist: What are their stated goals? What are their methods of achieving those goals? What are the steps taken toward those goals?

Second, religion is simply an identity, which, like any other identity, breeds shared experience, exclusion, animosity, a sense of belonging, and social division. Reza Aslan writes, “As a form of identity, religion is inextricable from all the other factors that make up a person’s self-understanding, like culture, ethnicity, nationality, gender and sexual orientation.” Even Richard Dawkins has conceded that volunteers for the “Islamic State” sign-up more out of a sense of tribalism than religion. Political science has known for some time that divided societies are generally harder to govern than monolithic ones, and in that way the continued existence of religion presents a political challenge across the world.

Third, all beliefs, including democracy and Islam, must be criticized, defended, and mocked. This is because correct beliefs will be found through a free marketplace of ideas, wherein beliefs are attacked, allowing us to see if they are strongly grounded in reason. Otherwise, we would be engaging in censorship, allowing an authority to determine which beliefs are correct or incorrect. Stifling debate and the flow of beliefs artificially limits the scope of belief destruction and creation, impeding the progress of human thinking and innovation.

Fourth, atheists are generally literalists. Many atheists can only read texts, religious or otherwise, literally. In an odd way, atheists need the religious fundamentalist, the person who thinks Adam and Eve really existed and Noah’s Ark was really built. Atheists know how to counter factual claims, and thus take comfort in easily uncovering the meaning of a text upon its first reading. This is why atheists discount religious texts which have inherent contradictions or are as vague as horoscopes in supplying wisdom. Atheists must realize that religion for many, but of course not all, is an emotional connection with others, a sense of comfort, and something which many believers are fine with not analyzing line-by-line. All the Muslims that I have met, similar to any other religious group, simply want to be good people and to have those they respect view them as such. To the extent that religion is involved in that, which varies greatly, they are religious.

Secularism, especially coupled with humanism, offers a strong alternative to religion as how people see the universe and reality. However, when criticizing religion, atheists must be diligent in crafting arguments. Making shallow statements about the blood on the hands of religion or launching thinly-veiled xenophobic critiques toward Islam will not lead to apostasy, but will encourage Muslims and others to do what all humans do when their identity is being challenged by an outside force: double-down and become stubborn. As is true for much of life, humility and empathy on the part of the religious critic here can go a long way.

My American Values: The Empty Pot

I begin the My American Values series with a content discussion of our U.S. Constitution and the social understandings of such contents. In this post, I will be concentrating on what our Constitution doesn’t say, and comparing that to other constitutions around the world.

Comparison to other constitutions

As a general note, our constitution is one of the oldest constitutions still in use. As time has gone on, modern constitutions have grown longer, often adding more rights for the people and more detailed powers and limitations of the government. For example, the U.S. Constitution, including amendments, is only about 7,229 words long. In contrast, India’s constitution, in PDF, is 471 pages long, and its table of contents alone contains 6,231 words. While more specificity allows for the document to produce governments more faithful to the text, it also decreases the flexibility and legibility of the document. This is a classic trade-off.

While it is certainly possible to have a more detailed constitution without having the features noted below, I would like to point out some interesting inclusions in foreign constitutions:

·         Egypt’s constitution defines Islam as the state religion.

·         France’s constitution defines French as the official language.

·         Ireland’s constitution holds the ‘family’ as the fundamental unit of society, and describes different rights for mothers.

·         North Korea’s constitution has an economic ideology: socialism.

·         The German constitution refers to a ‘German ethnic origin’.

Our constitution denotes not official language or religion and contains no discussions of the family or an American ethnicity. What about economic ideology? Well, that requires a bit more discussion. Justice Holmes, in dissent in Lockner v. New York (1905), stated the following, ‎"[The] constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." (Noting of course that this is a dissent to a long-overturned case, doctrine, and line of thinking in U.S. Constitutional analysis and interpretation—meaning it’s not binding law, but it can be persuasive.)

There is no language in the Constitution which even implies a specific economic theory. While the constitution does imply a right to exclusive individual property (as does the common law), it also includes the Interstate Commerce Clause (and to a lesser extent the Equal Protection clause) which imply governmental abilities to regulate commerce. Moreover, note that Art. I, Sec. 8 and Amend. XVI allow the Federal government to tax citizens’ income and general taxes on goods and services. All of these economic statements add up to say that there are times when the government can interact with the economy. That’s it. There isn’t enough in the document to implicate a specific economic ideal. At most it runs antithetical to extreme communism as well as extreme libertarianism, while allowing almost anything in between. 

Beyond what has been discussed above, our constitution also does not offer constitutional protections from non-state actors. It sets up no affirmative duties of parents, no prohibition against discrimination by private organizations, no protections of culture, etc. But should our Constitution speak to such important human issues as family, culture, language or religion?

What is done by not doing

            What this silence on such issues allows is the natural change, development and movement of humanity to occur without need to question the fundamental document. In the long course of human history, what we now call France, whose constitution hold French as the official language, has been occupied by dozens of languages. In Egypt, like many other countries, their constitution specifies Islam as the state religion. However, only a brief investigation of Egyptian history shows that at various times the area was dominated by Christianity and various forms of polytheistic worship. Having such momentary trends artificially codified attempts to freeze in time a snapshot of culture—an ever-evolving, elusive concept which cannot characterized as stagnant. The U.S. Constitution makes no claims of culture, and simply leaves such a discussion to be had elsewhere.

           

Economies change, languages change, religions change and ethnic compositions change. And when they do, constitutions which designate such elements will become anachronistic. They are simply not equipped for the natural and dynamic movements and changes of the human condition.

When the U.S. was founded the population (which was allowed a voice in such matters) was predominantly Anglo in ethnicity, Protestant Christian in religion, English by language, and agrarian by economy. A mere 300 years after that and the population could well be Hispanic by ethnicity, Catholic Christian in religion, Spanish by language, and socialist by economy. Or perhaps too mixed to characterize by ethnicity, no religion as religion, Spanish by language, free-market by economy and having no discernable family structure of which to speak. In either scenario, this would still be America. The Constitution would still be relevant.

The U.S. is often called a ‘melting pot’. This means that people of different colors and creeds come here and mix and mingle peaceably. In this analogy the people are the ingredients, the stuff which is being melted together. What, then, is the state? In such an analogy what symbolizes the fundamental structures on which the country rests? It’s the pot—the empty pot in which any people can be placed. No matter what cultures or people are placed in the pot, the label on the outside of the pot says the same thing: the United States of America.  

Graduation Prayer at Bastrop High School

Facts…

The story here is simple. Bastrop High School, a public school in Louisiana, originally included a prayer in the school’s graduation ceremony. After a complaint by student Damon Fowler, the school removed the prayer from the program. However, at the 20 May 2011 graduation ceremony, the valedictorian led those in attendance in a recitation of “the Lord’s Prayer”. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYLpZIv8xFY).

This situation brings forth an important Constitutional question: Does student-led prayer violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution?

First Amendment…

To best approach these questions, we first must read the operative Constitutional text, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  Good. Now fast-forward 171 years to the Supreme Court, which banned daily prayer in public schools in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and affirmed that ruling in Abington v. Schempp (1963). In Schempp, the daily prayer in question was actually the same prayer used at Bastrop High’s graduation; “the Lord’s Prayer”. Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1963). While there is a large difference between daily compulsory prayer and a singular prayer at graduation, I think it’s important to note the contextual similarity of the prayers in question. (The Lemon Test line of cases established in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) is of course noteworthy here. The Lemon Test states that a governmental action must meet three criteria in order to withstand Establishment Clause attack: a. Purpose – There must be a secular governmental purpose, b. Effect – Its effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, c. Entanglement – There must not be an excessive government entanglement with religion.)

A more pertinent case was decided in 1992, Lee v. Weisman. In that case, the public school administration chose a rabbi to lead a prayer at an optional graduation ceremony (as most graduation ceremonies are optional). The Court held that this act was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. A school administrator, as an employee of the State, may not direct religious content at a public school graduation. The Court noted the following facts irrelevant: attendance was optional, the prayer was brief, the prayer was broad and ‘nonsectarian’, and the occasion was significant and as such many wished for the inclusion of religion. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (U.S. 1992).

Since this ruling, many school districts have changed policies, but also changed tactics. There have recently been questions in the federal courts of student-led prayer at graduation ceremonies that have yet to reach the Supreme Court. Thus, the question has been left open by the Court: Is student lead prayer at public school graduations violative of the Constitution?

State Action…

I feel that such an act is indeed violative of the Constitution. To find out why, we  again need to cover a bit of Supreme Court history. 

In Marsh v. Alabama, the Court held that if a private entity provides a public function, a function traditionally reserved for the State, the entity can be considered a State actor, and thus be bound by the Constitution. Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1946). The Court has advanced this ‘state action’ doctrine over the years, adding additional reasons a private entity could be bound by the Constitution as a State would. In 1961 the Court wrote,

…[N]o State may effectively abdicate its responsibilities by either ignoring them or by merely failing to discharge them whatever the motive may be. It is of no consolation to an individual denied the equal protection of the laws that it was done in good faith… By its inaction, the Authority, and through it the State, has not only made itself a party to the refusal of service, but has elected to place its power, property and prestige behind the admitted discrimination.

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1961). Later, the Court held that state action may be found when there is a “close nexus between the State and the challenged action”, such that the action “may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.” Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1974).

Most recently, the Court decided Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association in 2002. In that case the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association was a not-for-profit corporation charged with regulating interscholastic competition in the state. Brentwood Academy, a private school, claimed that its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were being infringed by the Association as it acts as a state entity. The Supreme Court agreed. The Court felt that there was a "pervasive entwinement" of state and private officials with state-sanctioned and recognized authority. Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Ath. Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288 (U.S. 2001).

            What does this all mean? That the Courts can hold non-State entities accountable as if they were indeed formal actors of the State. The Court has indicated that this determination is necessarily a fact-intensive one, but in general the entity must either occupy a role traditionally occupied by the state (Marsh), implicitly be given state authority by the State (Brentwood), etc.

And in the end…

            The Court has already held that State-led prayer at a voluntary public high school graduation violates the First Amendment. (Lee v. Weisman). While the student who led the prayer is not a state employee, she stood on stage, with the microphone, commanding the attention of those gathered. Instead of a school administrator making the decision for a prayer, such a decision was given to her, granting her the ‘power and prestige’ of the State. (Burton v. Wilmington PA). The same coercive infirmaries discussed and acknowledged in Lee v. Weisman exist here: no marginalized individual will feel differently if an administrator chose the prayer or a student chose the prayer. A student speaking at a graduation is a state actor. If the student was speaking merely as an individual, and not an actor of the state, who would pay attention? How many would attend the speech of a random 18-year-old recent high school graduate? The prayer itself occurred because the state had given it a forum, a captive audience, and implicit approval. The students are there to participate in their graduation ceremony from a public high school. No student need be ostracized at his/her own graduation on religious grounds. Not in America.

            If the Court were to hold that this individual wasn’t a state actor, such a holding would effectively erode Lee v. Weisman. School administrators would be able to get around the ‘impositional power’ avoided in that case by simply finding a student to do the prayer instead of a selected clergy member. The state will still be establishing religion. Those of any other religious persuasion would still suffer legally cognizable coercion.  

            As such, I condemn the actions taken this weekend at Bastrop, and similar ones wherever and whenever they may occur. I also commend the—apparently—lone student dissenter to this event, Damon Fowler, for standing up for the firm separation of church and state in America.

5 Ways to Transition to the Cooling of the New Secular “Movement”

This isn’t a post on ‘Science v. Religion’ or ‘How Atheists should take over the World’ or anything like that. I merely offer 5 thoughts as to how those who wish to advance secular interests in America should do so in a sustainable way.

The rise in atheism in the public consciousness, called New Atheism, has begun to fade a bit, and has certainly had backlashes from all sides. The largely implicit goal of New Atheism is to combat, counter, and criticize religion wherever and whenever a reasonable argument exists. Indeed, I have felt an almost ‘witch hunt’ mentality in certain circles toward those who commit harm in the name of belief.  

However, in the zeal and bandwagon mentality of the ‘movement’, a sense of inclusiveness was lost.  During the Civil Rights era, the creation of white allies was important for the Southern Blacks to spread their message of freedom and equality. Secularists must do the same. By stopping the vilification of all who believe in a god or gods and by acting in accordance to secular values—which are often shared by both religious and nonreligious alike—seculars can work toward broadening the audience of their message.

To do this, I provide five guidelines below. Whether in person, on the internet, or in a book, one should be very careful how one presents one's self if identified as a non-theist.

1.      Don’t be aggressive, reactionary, or extremist

            Let’s face it, whether you call yourself an agnostic, an atheist, a secular, a humanist, a freethinker, a bright, etc. many Americans have stereotypes about non-theists. The best way to combat such stereotypes isn’t to lecture about how ‘A doesn’t necessarily imply B’, or how ‘morality and religion have nothing to do with each other’, or anything else that’ll take more than a few breaths or Twitter updates. No, the best way is simply to not exemplify such stereotypes.

Don’t present radically different ideals or solutions and don’t perpetuate what others may think of you.

2.      Don’t attack faith or belief directly

            In the U.S. today, a vast majority of Americans consider faith in something ‘greater than oneself’ to be an important part of a good person. Such strong beliefs can’t be knocked-off directly. I’m sorry to report it, but people simply aren’t wired to give up years of values for a good rational argument.

Regardless of how dangerous you think they are, try to avoid criticizing faith or belief directly.

3.      Don’t try to convince others of your ‘rightness’

            Even if you could reduce your argument to mathematical clarity and certainty, some people won’t agree with you simply because they don’t want to. Again, dissonance theory shows that people simply aren’t wired to DEAR (drop everything and reason).

Trying to prove yourself right—or worse, someone else wrong—will simply alienate much of your audience.

4.      Highlight agreement and use human illustrations

            Remember, secularism is simply the removal of religious influence from non-religious life. Many religious people agree fully with these ideals. When defending your views, use concepts like fairness and freedom, and give examples of children who simply want to be treated the same way as everyone else, or some other illustration which rests on common humanity.

Most people want what’s best for America and for our children; remind them that you share such values.

5.      Become a part of the process

Debating in public forums can be great. Rallying supporters can give a boost to any group or idea. But, at the end of the day, the only people to directly decide the amount of religious influence in our laws and policy are lawyers and judges, politicians and their staff, and lobbyists. For secular positions to advance, seculars must seek employment in these fields and become the decision-makers they have long petitioned. Currently, I believe there is only one member of the House of Representatives that would identify as at least a non-theist, Pete Stark. This part of the change will be slow, but it will be most important.

Become involved in government and the decision-makers of our society directly.