Atheists should criticize religion, but how we do it matters

[Underseer]

"Political correctness" and discussions about Islam

Back in the 2000s, many new atheists passionately argued about how political correctness prevented criticism of religion.

Honestly, before 9/11, there was a taboo against any criticism of religion. I don't think it was political correctness (I don't think political correctness is even a thing, other than a blanket excuse to change the subject any time someone gets caught being a bigot), but there very much was a taboo against criticism of religion.

I agree that there was a taboo and that the taboo was wrong. However, thanks to the new atheists in the previous decade, the taboo has more or less fallen away. Oh, theists still claim that all criticism of religion is wrong, but they will always say that. Among liberals (the supposed villains responsible for "political correctness"), the taboo against criticizing religion is pretty much gone. I can spew just about any atheist meme I want on my Facebook feed without a peep from any liberal friends.

The problem is that right-leaning atheists have latched on to those old arguments from the 2000s and insist that "political correctness" still exists and "prevents all criticism" of Islam by anyone at any time.

I don't see how anyone can still think this. None of the liberal circles I truck with give me any grief over any criticism I make of Christianity, Islam, religion in general, etc.

The problem should be obvious. Conservative politicians are openly arguing that we should deport all Muslims, or that we should refuse to allow any Muslim to immigrate here for any reason, or that we should let all the refugees die, etc. You know the drill, you've heard the arguments. Conservatives have even murdered Sikhs because they thought they were Muslim. Mosques face protests from right wing loonies making bizarre accusations barely connected to reality. So of course whenever conservatives do things like this, people accuse them of being bigots.

Like good little conservatives, they reflexively respond with accusations of "political correctness." They can't possibly be bigots because all accusations of bigotry are false and nothing more than people using "political correctness" to "silence their free speech rights."

Because of the Trump candidacy, I've been dealing with a lot of whining about "political correctness" from other atheists lately. I'm getting sick of all the "political correctness does not allow us to criticize Islam" memes on my Facebook feed from atheist groups. Any time Trump says something stupid and ignorant and bigoted about Muslims, you can bet you're going to see a lot of those memes from atheist Facebook groups.

I'm getting sick and tired of it, but I think we do need to have it out on this topic.


Theist treatment of homosexuals

To get into why I think this discussion is so important, I want to talk about Christian and Muslim prejudice against homosexuals.

Christianity and Islam both share blame for the recent shooting at that gay nightclub. Contrary to what people say, they did not directly cause that shooting. The vast majority of Christians and Muslims do not go around killing gay people. The Muslim who did was clearly a lunatic. The connection is that Christians and Muslims constantly spew hate at homosexuals. The shooter got anti-gay messages from home, from his mosque, and from the Christian-majority society outside his immediate circle. When Christians and Muslims constantly fan the fires of hate against homosexuals, it is inevitable that the lunatics among them will target homosexuals when they go crazy.

The vast majority of Christians and Muslims are able to process all of this hate without going on killing sprees. If Christianity and Islam did not create this environment of hate, Omar Mateen would probably still have gone on a killing spree, but the victims would probably been different. Maybe he would have shot up a post office. Maybe he would have shot up a local supermarket. Who knows? The man was crazy. However because of the environment of hate directed at homosexuals by both the Muslim and Christian communities, his choice of targets was more likely to involve gay people, and so he shot up a gay nightclub instead of a post office.

That's the connection. That's what makes Christianity and Islam at least partially responsible for that killing spree at a gay nightclub.


Atheist violence

We atheists can be proud that religiously-motivated violence is rare in our ranks, but we do have our own crazies. In any population, you're going to get crazies. That's just how it works. You can't avoid it. Unfortunately, the number of religiously-motivated attacks by atheists is not zero.

Craig Stephen Hicks killed three people because they were Muslim.

I'm pretty sure that Michael Enright (who slashed a cab driver's throat for saying he was Muslim) is an atheist, but I could be remembering that wrong.

The thing is, the few acts of religiously-motivated violence by atheists seem to involve Muslims as victims.

We atheists as a community spend an awful lot of time talking about how much we dislike Islam and how much worse Islam is than all the other religions (and in may ways it is). I cannot confidently connect anti-Muslim rhetoric among atheists to these violent incidents because, well, I have a sample size of only one or two. It's just not enough for a conclusion, is it?

But isn't it possible that all the time we spend talking about Islam in the way we do a contributing factor? I don't always watch my language when bad-mouthing Christians and Muslims. I try my best to criticize the ideas of those religions and not the people, but when I'm among atheists, I do not really check my language before spewing a diatribe. Not as much as I probably should.

What if we did create an environment in which the crazies among us were more likely to choose Muslim (or Christian if we're going to be honest about our language) victims when they go nuts?

I'm concerned because if the numbers stay the way they are, then some generation soon we are going to be in the majority (we already are in a few countries). If we get in the habit of spewing hate at theists in general or theists from certain religions, then eventually we will create an environment in which we make it more likely that the crazies among us choose certain targets based on our rhetoric. I would really rather we fix this before we become the majority. Mark Twain said "When you find yourself in the majority, it is time to pause and reflect," but why not be more proactive than that and start the reflection sooner?

For myself, I'm going to try more to criticize the ideas of religion and not the people, and when I talk to make it more clear that that is what I am doing. After all, I think of theists as victims. They are victims of a political control scheme whose original creators died a long time ago. As Peter Boghossian would say, they are the victims of a bad epistemology that warps their view of the world. I should do more to remember that while I hate the ideas of religion, its adherents are human beings and worthy of empathy.

Anyway, what do you think? Are we careful enough about criticizing ideas instead of people? Should we criticize ideas instead of people? Where is the line between criticizing bad ideas and being an asshole? If enough of us are assholes, could this influence the behavior of the crazies in our own community?

 

[Lion IRC]

Underseer,
Do you think anti-religion bigotry is a thing?

 

[Lion IRC]

Does anything in the counter-apologetic, anti-theism dialectic qualify as 'hate speech'?

 

[DrZoidberg]

A good reason to stop criticizing religion is because it's fairly pointless. It's like picking on the handicapped kid. Let's take some examples of these countries where religion is dead (practically speaking).

Sweden

We replaced religion with socialism. Systematically we replaced every practical function religion served, (yes, they exist) and put something socialist in it's place. At the turn of the last century socialist "sermons" were common where socialist agitators would read from "sacred" communist texts. These morphed into adult education. But it was no revolution. It was a slow gradual shift starting in 1860 about and ended in 1950 about.

Czech Republic.

Being a crossroads country caught between protestant and catholic empires meant that the country suffered immeasurably from this. And the country instantly switching allegiances depending on the faith of the current ruler. Belief was replaced by ritual. When communism swept in (just as in Sweden) replaced every religious function with a socialist equivalent.

We don't have reliable numbers of Czech religiosity during the communist rule. But before communism ca 1910 it was 95% Roman Catholic. After the fall of communist rule that number was 39%. Today that number is 13%

What this tells us is that criticizing religion is pointless. If you want to kill it you need to invent something that replaces it's various functions. Once you've done that it'll just die and stay dead.

We've got to figure out what in your culture and area creates:

1) A sense of community across age groups and preferably class barriers.
2) A set of rituals, (weddings, funerals and such)
3) A reliable social function where we can go and find help and support when life turns to shit or we are in emotional turmoil.
4) Somewhere to turn to get guidance in life. An authority of sorts.
5) A platform from where to create art, or something that affirms all of the above.

I'm not saying everybody needs this in their lives. But religious people do. And until we've figured out how to replace all these functions religious people will stay religious. and until we give them an alternative it's utterly and completely pointless to criticize their religion.

Also... once their is a viable non-religious alternative it'll be dead easy to de-convert them. Because pretty much all religion is fucking retarded.

So, to sum up, learn from history and do what the Swedes and Czechs did.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does anything in the counter-apologetic, anti-theism dialectic qualify as 'hate speech'?

If we're countering apologetics, no.
The religious hate speech I'm aware of is limited to theists pointing at other theists who are 'going to hell' for being wrong, and thus fair game for expulsions and inquisitions and gerrymandering and lynching.

Most virulently anti-religious atheists i know of are against the organization, not the congregation.
Do you have any examples of atheists saying we should beat up individual catholics just because they're catholics? Or mormons?
Anything remotely like the thumpers who say we should exile/arrest/hang, say, homosexuals exactly because they are homosexuals?

 

[funinspace]

One thought before I pick on one of your paragraphs. Keeping it short...I do think there is a much larger portion of Muslims that have gone off the reservation into very ugly territory than for Christians, especially in our timeframe. I would not say this 500 years ago. Of course ISIS is monstrous. However, what word should be used to describe dropping at least 10 million tons of bombs on SE Asia, mostly from 20,000 feet? I find it frustrating that far too many Americans seem to think history begins right at 911. They conveniently sidestep western powers machinations in the ME societies for last century after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It doesn't matter than westerners were just the next power to sweep into a vacuum and play, as most powers have played over the eons. Of course the US is used as the big bad boogie man for all their problems. The question IMPOV is how to slowly untangle these ugly knots.

Christianity and Islam both share blame for the recent shooting at that gay nightclub. Contrary to what people say, they did not directly cause that shooting. The vast majority of Christians and Muslims do not go around killing gay people. The Muslim who did was clearly a lunatic. The connection is that Christians and Muslims constantly spew hate at homosexuals. The shooter got anti-gay messages from home, from his mosque, and from the Christian-majority society outside his immediate circle. When Christians and Muslims constantly fan the fires of hate against homosexuals, it is inevitable that the lunatics among them will target homosexuals when they go crazy.

Overall, I agree with your points. However, you sort of implied above that the majority of Christians spew hate or are generally very negative towards the LGBT community. Sure we have a loud Christian segment that spew hostilities, including a very high portion of the fundagelicals. However, a few decent sized sects have embraced the LGBT community like the ELCA (Lutheran) has. The largest Protestant sect, the United Methodist Chruch is struggling with the issue, but hardly is hostile. They may have to break up into 2 Methodist sects, but they will change as the pressure is on:
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/111-clergy-clergy-candidates-come-out-as-gay

A letter from 500 openly LGBTQ clergy, future pastors and faith leader in a number of different denominations offered “much love and light” to the 111 United Methodist clergy and candidates who came out as gay on May 9.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does anything in the counter-apologetic, anti-theism dialectic qualify as 'hate speech'?

Sure. Anything that targets people simply because of their religion and not their personal self could be considered hate speech. You hear it here by some against Muslims. Not as much against Christianity here, that is more mocked than hated.

Should be noted that merely debunking religious dogma or thinking isn't hate speech. And saying that religious based intolerance is intolerable is also not hate speech.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm still stuck on the cartoon thing when it comes to Islam. Charlie Hebdo too. That so few were willing to publish the cartoons that had muslims rolling heads shows an intimidation factor that needs to be taken head on.

I agree that we can criticize Judaism and Christianity pretty openly now (hasn't always been so), but Islam is still unjustifiably protected, by both muslims and their odd liberal allies in it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem isn't criticizing Islam. Its the going overboard doing it that disturbs many.

As far as hateful atheists, yes, these exist. Anybody who has been on atheist forums for any time at all knows the type. And the rather unplesant anti-SWJ types are certainly not in short supply. Loud, obnoxious and socially unkempt. All one can do is be as reasonable as possible with one's criticisms. And avoid becoming a stereotype oneself. The angry, nasty atheist type.

 

[Underseer]

Underseer,
Do you think anti-religion bigotry is a thing?

Do you think it is bigotry to randomly incarcerate people without trial because they are Muslim? How about keeping them locked up even after you find out they are totally innocent? Wouldn't you say that is pretty bigoted? Because that is exactly what we did at Guantanamo during the Bush administration.

Millions of Americans are not only OK with this, they get very angry at anyone who has a problem with this.

How about presidential candidates arguing that we should refuse immigrants based on religion?

How about presidential candidates arguing that we should kick prior out of the country based on religion?

How about randomly murdering Sikhs because you hate Muslims?

I'm sure you can think of other recent examples.

I don't see how anyone can deny that religion-based bigotry exists in America and is directed largely at Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -

Does anything in the counter-apologetic, anti-theism dialectic qualify as 'hate speech'?

No.

As long as people are clear that they are arguing against the ideas rather than the people, I see nothing wrong with it. In fact, I will go further and insist that it is necessary. No idea should ever be protected from criticism.

- - - Updated - - -

A good reason to stop criticizing religion is because it's fairly pointless. It's like picking on the handicapped kid. Let's take some examples of these countries where religion is dead (practically speaking).

[...]

Sweden and America are very different. We tried your way for two centuries, and religion has only become worse and more radicalized.

 

[Underseer]

One thought before I pick on one of your paragraphs. Keeping it short...I do think there is a much larger portion of Muslims that have gone off the reservation into very ugly territory than for Christians, especially in our timeframe. I would not say this 500 years ago. Of course ISIS is monstrous. However, what word should be used to describe dropping at least 10 million tons of bombs on SE Asia, mostly from 20,000 feet? I find it frustrating that far too many Americans seem to think history begins right at 911. They conveniently sidestep western powers machinations in the ME societies for last century after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It doesn't matter than westerners were just the next power to sweep into a vacuum and play, as most powers have played over the eons. Of course the US is used as the big bad boogie man for all their problems. The question IMPOV is how to slowly untangle these ugly knots.

Thanks for your thoughts. Not only do I agree, but I would go one step further.

We cannot ignore the critical role Christianity played in selling the Iraq war to the American people. Anyone who participated in those debates knows damn well that most Christians wanted that war because they wanted to kill Muslims. As far as I'm concerned, Christianity is to blame for the invasion of Iraq as much as any oil company or neoconservative strategist.

This means that Christians have a lot more blood on their hands than Muslims even before we take into account those African evangelicals who are setting children on fire for witchcraft.

Overall, I agree with your points. However, you sort of implied above that the majority of Christians spew hate or are generally very negative towards the LGBT community. Sure we have a loud Christian segment that spew hostilities, including a very high portion of the fundagelicals. However, a few decent sized sects have embraced the LGBT community like the ELCA (Lutheran) has. The largest Protestant sect, the United Methodist Chruch is struggling with the issue, but hardly is hostile. They may have to break up into 2 Methodist sects, but they will change as the pressure is on:
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/111-clergy-clergy-candidates-come-out-as-gay

A letter from 500 openly LGBTQ clergy, future pastors and faith leader in a number of different denominations offered “much love and light” to the 111 United Methodist clergy and candidates who came out as gay on May 9.

Of course there are liberal Christians. I love liberal Christians and I think most of them are really decent people.

There are also liberal Muslims, many of whom are more dedicated to the Enlightenment values on which this nation was founded than your average FOX News watcher.

However, the problem comes from the environment of hate, and I'm sure we can all agree that the majority of Christians are creating that environment. It is that environment of hate that increases the likelihood that crazy people will target homosexuals when they snap.

Even if you are right and Muslims are more hateful towards homosexuals than Christians are, Christians vastly outnumber Muslims in this country, so the environment that we have is coming mostly from them.

But enough about the environment of hate created by Christians and Muslims. In just a few more generations, they will be the minority, so I'm more worried about whether or not we atheists are crossing some kind of line. Are we creating the sort of environment in which the crazies in our community are more likely to target certain groups of theists? If so, what can we do about it?

Our numbers are growing. This means that over time, the number of violent incidents caused by atheists is going to rise. If there is something we can do about it now, I would rather address this sooner than later.

 

[Underseer]

Does anything in the counter-apologetic, anti-theism dialectic qualify as 'hate speech'?

If we're countering apologetics, no.
The religious hate speech I'm aware of is limited to theists pointing at other theists who are 'going to hell' for being wrong, and thus fair game for expulsions and inquisitions and gerrymandering and lynching.

Most virulently anti-religious atheists i know of are against the organization, not the congregation.
Do you have any examples of atheists saying we should beat up individual catholics just because they're catholics? Or mormons?
Anything remotely like the thumpers who say we should exile/arrest/hang, say, homosexuals exactly because they are homosexuals?

I agree.

Further, I will not stop arguing against theist claims because I have come to the conclusion that all truth claims must be challenged, particularly truth claims that are poorly supported. It's not just Christians persecuting homosexuals in America and Russia, or Muslims persecuting religious minorities in Pakistan, but many poorly supported non-religious truth claims are also doing damage (alternative medicine, anti vaccine, etc). I simply will not let bad truth claims go unchallenged any longer.

That being said, many of the fragrantly prejudiced anti-Muslim hate speech by conservatives is echoed by a certain portion of the atheist community. We are clearly more likely to use the word terrorism when Muslims do it than when Christians do it (that is as much the fault of mainstream media as FOX News). We use sloppy generalizations to equate the violent crazies in Islam with all Muslims. Some of us even argue for mass incarceration or expulsion of Muslims. Some merely argue that we should never allow Muslim immigrants, that immigration status should include a religious test.

I would say that at least some of us (if not most in the case of those sloppy generalizations) are crossing the line into prejudice.

Shouldn't we consider the possible consequences of our words and hold ourselves to a higher standard than theists do?

 

[Underseer]

I'm still stuck on the cartoon thing when it comes to Islam. Charlie Hebdo too. That so few were willing to publish the cartoons that had muslims rolling heads shows an intimidation factor that needs to be taken head on.

I agree that we can criticize Judaism and Christianity pretty openly now (hasn't always been so), but Islam is still unjustifiably protected, by both muslims and their odd liberal allies in it.

It is right to criticize that as long as you're criticizing the ideas that cause this rather than the people.

Muslims should feel ashamed that cartoons were enough to inspire violent riots the world over, but the practice of child marriage in their own religion does not inspire violent riots all over the world.

Muslims should feel ashamed that cartoons were enough to inspire violent riots the world over, but the Pakistani practice of butchering atheist bloggers with machetes is not enough to inspire violent riots all over the world.

There is a very long list of things that should enrage Muslims more than cartoons, but that does not seem to be the case?

However, perhaps we should be careful in criticizing the bad set of priorities that leads to this phenomenon. Let's talk about the bad decisions that they are making. Let's talk about the bad ideas that lead them to be more angry about cartoons than female genital mutilation.

But the moment we use their reaction to the cartoons to intimate that there is something inherently inferior about Muslims, I think we have crossed a line. Anyone with any familiarity with American history knows that nothing good comes from declaring your in group to be morally superior or an external population to be morally inferior. Even if the claim is true, harping on it tends to lead to a sense of entitlement and collective superiority that can lead to some awfully ugly places.

If we are overly general and overly broad and suggest that all Muslims will kill people over cartoons, some crazy person reading your post might be inspired to commit a violent act against Muslims. After all, if all Muslims kill people over cartoons, then in the mind of a crazy person, slaughtering random Muslims is merely an act of self defense, isn't it?

Can't we at least acknowledge that violent responses to cartoons is not universal among Muslims?

 

[Lion IRC]

In your Op there's something of a contradiction. Because in saying that Christians and Muslims collectively share the blame for last week's shooting, you yourself are inciting hate against Christians and Muslims.

I'm opposed to abortion. I think it is a sin. Is that hate speech? Do I share the blame for abortion clinic bombers?

If it's OK for people to scream 'Christofascist' 'misogynist' etc at me, why can't I scream 'baby killer' back at them?

 

[Lion IRC]

The LGBTQIXYZ lobby asserts their free speech prerogative in the public square making loud declarations about sexuality - preaching about their definition of love and morality. And they demand not only 'tolerance' but acceptance.

At what point did it become unacceptable 'hate speech' for people to publicly disagree with them?

 

[Juma]

The LGBTQIXYZ lobby asserts their free speech prerogative in the public square making loud declarations about sexuality - preaching about their definition of love and morality. And they demand not only 'tolerance' but acceptance.

At what point did it become unacceptable 'hate speech' for people to publicly disagree with them?

To disagree with what? There right to be what they are?

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes, I imagine that would be one of the points of disagreement.

But the central issues here are;

'equality'
'diversity'
'tolerance'
'freedom'

Do I have an equal right to self-expression? Must my views also be tolerated?

 

[Ramaraksha]

A good reason to stop criticizing religion is because it's fairly pointless. It's like picking on the handicapped kid. Let's take some examples of these countries where religion is dead (practically speaking).

Sweden

We replaced religion with socialism. Systematically we replaced every practical function religion served, (yes, they exist) and put something socialist in it's place. At the turn of the last century socialist "sermons" were common where socialist agitators would read from "sacred" communist texts. These morphed into adult education. But it was no revolution. It was a slow gradual shift starting in 1860 about and ended in 1950 about.

Czech Republic.

Being a crossroads country caught between protestant and catholic empires meant that the country suffered immeasurably from this. And the country instantly switching allegiances depending on the faith of the current ruler. Belief was replaced by ritual. When communism swept in (just as in Sweden) replaced every religious function with a socialist equivalent.

We don't have reliable numbers of Czech religiosity during the communist rule. But before communism ca 1910 it was 95% Roman Catholic. After the fall of communist rule that number was 39%. Today that number is 13%

What this tells us is that criticizing religion is pointless. If you want to kill it you need to invent something that replaces it's various functions. Once you've done that it'll just die and stay dead.

We've got to figure out what in your culture and area creates:

1) A sense of community across age groups and preferably class barriers.
2) A set of rituals, (weddings, funerals and such)
3) A reliable social function where we can go and find help and support when life turns to shit or we are in emotional turmoil.
4) Somewhere to turn to get guidance in life. An authority of sorts.
5) A platform from where to create art, or something that affirms all of the above.

I'm not saying everybody needs this in their lives. But religious people do. And until we've figured out how to replace all these functions religious people will stay religious. and until we give them an alternative it's utterly and completely pointless to criticize their religion.

Also... once their is a viable non-religious alternative it'll be dead easy to de-convert them. Because pretty much all religion is fucking retarded.

So, to sum up, learn from history and do what the Swedes and Czechs did.

Your view is shaped by the country and environment that you came from? Because you do not suffer any religious persecution it is a bit easy for you to say just ignore religion it's pointless?

 

[Ramaraksha]

In your Op there's something of a contradiction. Because in saying that Christians and Muslims collectively share the blame for last week's shooting, you yourself are inciting hate against Christians and Muslims.

I'm opposed to abortion. I think it is a sin. Is that hate speech? Do I share the blame for abortion clinic bombers?

If it's OK for people to scream 'Christofascist' 'misogynist' etc at me, why can't I scream 'baby killer' back at them?

That is how democracy works - you are entitled to your opinion, so do others

Telling people that they are living in sin and they are going to straight to hell and if they disagree they are inciting hate against you? Nice choice of words. Weren't the same words used against inter-racial couples some time ago and still are?

Today we see blacks being killed by whites - some of it is hate crime - is not the general racist climate of this country not responsible? of course it is

Time and time again i have read articles on Hitler and his treatment of jews - i have not yet read even one article blaming the general hate climate against jews for supporting what Hitler did - every article writer wants to propagate the view that Hitler alone was responsible for killing 6 million jews - that lets the religion(started the hate and kept the hate alive for 2,000 years) and the general populace off the hook. Hitler had plenty of WILLING support - poland and i think latvia? - these people were more than happy to kill and murder - all they needed was someone to tell them it was ok. Too bad Rwandans didn't have a Hitler like guy to take all the blame

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Something that may absolutely shock folks here: Polls have shown that American/Canadian Muslims support gay marriage more than American/Canadian Portestant Christians do.