So what are we supposed to do? If we accept the idea that challenging Islam inevitably means challenging the followers of Islam, i.e. Muslims, what are we to do about that? Stop challenging Islam, in order to avoid giving pain to Muslims or pleasure to people who like to bully Muslims?
The concern is a real one. It is of course true that challenges to a religion will give pain to some of its followers, assuming they are aware of them. We don’t know how large a fraction of those followers, or how severe the pain will be, but we can be reasonably sure neither number will be zero. It’s also true that challenges to a religion will give a nasty form of pleasure to people who like to bully its followers. Again we don’t know the numbers, but we know from observing people like Pamela Geller that they’re not zero.
So should we observer a precautionary principle, and just decide to refrain, to be on the safe side?
We could, but the trouble is, there’s harm in the other direction too. There’s harm in making a religion immune to challenges, because religions by their nature wield massive arbitrary unaccountable power over their followers. If nobody challenges a particular religion, its power becomes even more arbitrary and unaccountable. That power is most thoroughly exercised on its own followers.
Most religions are intended to be closed circles. It’s not supposed to be easy to leave; it’s supposed to be very difficult. Putting a religion beyond the reach of challenge makes it that much harder to leave; it also makes it harder to interpret in a liberal direction, or modify, or cherry-pick.
People who challenge religion can be a nuisance to religious believers but they – I mean we – can also be their allies. We’re on the outside showing them where the doors are and how easy it is to open them.
So I don’t think we do even devout followers of religions a real favor by refraining from challenging their religions.
I was once a member of a fundamentalist belief system. I felt stifled, but didn’t know there was another way. When I realized there were people out there who did not believe the same way, it gave me courage to question my own beliefs, but at the same time, not the courage to walk away from them, because most of the people I encountered were long dead, people like Voltaire. It wasn’t until I went to college, and had my beliefs in many things challenged, that I began to see there was a doorway out of the system that stifled and repressed me, and tried to make me keep my intellect and my enthusiasm in a small box labeled “Woman – not for use outside the home”.
I want to thank everyone who had the courage to issue those challenges, and give me the courage to walk in a different direction. Yes, it hurts to have someone challenge your beliefs. But then you go study up on them to find good answers to those people. If your beliefs stand up to rigorous investigation, then they’ve done you a favor by helping you understand why you believe the way you do, and giving you the solid arguments to support your belief. If they do not stand up under rigorous belief, then they have done you an even bigger favor, because you can stop believing things that have no evidence.
Anyone who insists that no one challenge what they believe is someone who is unwilling to take the risk that their beliefs might not stand up to investigation.
Thank you. That’s exactly what I mean. I do think we’re doing people a favor by showing them the doors, even though we do collateral damage in the process. I think even people who don’t want to leave need to know they can.
It’s a fine line to draw. First, I think we do need to respect an adult person’s right to make their own choices, even if they are (to us) obviously bad choices. So I think this means that, as a society, we challenge where necessary, but refrain from challenging otherwise. As a society, I think it is better – by which I mean more effective – to take a pragmatic (as opposed to moralistic) approach. For example, I despise the idea of a women wearing nikkab. But I think a law against wearing nikkab in public is more likely to make nikkab-wearing women feel that they are being forced to stay at home, as opposed to getting them to drop the veil so they can go out. On the other hand, again speaking pragmatically, I reject the idea that there should be special religious exemptions that allow people to do things (or refrain from doing things) that would otherwise be required. For example, we should deny the request made by a medical professional in the UK that she be exempted from having to prep for procedures by washing up to her elbows on the grounds that her Muslim faith did not allow her to bare her arms.
But I think that’s perhaps answering a different question from the one that was asked about publicly challenging religions. It is offensive. It does hurt their feelings. For many religious people, challenging their religion is seen as a personal attack – like Pope Frankie said, insulting his religion is like insulting his mother. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, and it also doesn’t mean that retaliation should be condoned (though perhaps we should at least take steps to prepare for it).
There are two separate issues here. One is the (currently unrecognized) right not to hear, the right to control our “headspace” the same way we prevent others from impinging on our body space. Nobody should have to listen to/see what they object to, whether it’s the Pope, or Muslims, or my distaste for Limbaugh and advertising. (Yes, that would shut down most ads. Maybe that’s why the right is so unrecognized.) We have a right (even if currently unrecognized) not to have offense shoved at us on billboards or in, say, airports where we’re a captive audience.
But that’s a lot less than some Muslims are demanding. They want nobody, anywhere, to see what they object to. That’s different. That’s the second issue. They have no right to tell others what they can see in magazines or web sites.
And racing around killing people is a crime completely separate from free speech issues. The assassin’s veto is not valid, is never valid, should never even be up for debate (omg, hashtag territory!), except people are so eager to find a “good” reason to avoid the need for courage.
@quixote: If I am not misunderstanding, you seek to defend a person’s right not to hear or see what they object to. I hope I am misunderstanding, because I think that is a terrible idea. What if a person objects to seeing persons of colour, women, or persons with disabilities using certain water fountains or working at certain jobs? What if a person objects to seeing couples of different ethnicities or of the same gender holding hands? Many people think that simply mentioning the word “atheism” on a billboard is offensive – should such a thing therefore be banned?
That’s a way of framing the debate that forgets to consider the offense religion causes atheists, and in particular the offense that publicly visible religion causes to secularists. It puts other people’s offense before our own. Why are they special?
“If we accept the idea that challenging Islam inevitably means challenging the followers of Islam, i.e. Muslims, what are we to do about that? Stop challenging Islam,”
First, we treat religions as the ideologies that they really are and don’t concede them any special status. A thorough sprinkling with the magic pixie-dust of the supernatural doesn’t make Islam any less totalitarian or misogynistic, or any less a threat to liberal democracy, or our civilization.
Earlier generations didn’t defer to the sensitivities of Communists. Nazis or Fascists when they challenged their demented beliefs.
Why are they special? Good question. I suppose because religions are a Something, while atheism (as so many people like to point out ad nauseam) are a negation of Something, not a Something. Religions train people from childhood to love the Divine Figures. (Some also teach people to fear them, which complicates in both directions.)
Good point about the ideologies.
On the other hand it really is the case that feelings about religion often are “special.” That’s highly unfortunate, because it means people basically embrace their oppressor, but it’s still there.
@8, 9 Ophelia,
Yes, it’s easy for atheists to take a detached view and treat any religion as just another social/political ideology, however to many people, perhaps the majority, religions are special and should be ‘respected’. Of course ‘respect’ can imply deference to the religious sensitivities of believers, e.g. the advice not to eat during Ramadan or legislation that allows Christians to discriminate against minorities, there’s no room for compromise in regard to ‘respect’ for ideologies, either for the secular state, or the individual. Of course respect for a (law abiding) individual’s right to a particular faith is an entirely different matter.
That said, I don’t feel under any imperative to challenge the beliefs of the faithful, it’s usually pointless.
One of my Christian neighbors used to remind me every Christmas that December 25 is Jesus’ birthday, “no”( I always replied), “it’s the feast of Saturnalia”, didn’t get a visit last Christmas.
The best we can hope for is for believers to understand that they can’t impose their superstitions on secular society.
“while atheism (as so many people like to point out ad nauseam) are a negation of Something, not a Something”
That’s always seemed like sophistry to me, the onus of proof is on the believer, not the atheist, they have to demonstrate the existence of God, gods,or the supernatural, so far no one has ever managed to present empirical evidence.
rjw1:
Speak for yourself — I wouldn’t find it at all easy to be so ontologically confused that I’d conflate the social/political effects of religion with religion itself; in relation to your observation, the obvious reason is that for many people, perhaps the majority, religion is part of their identity.
—
[to Ophelia]
It’s not sophistry, it’s noting that the concept of atheism is a privative one — absent the concept of theism, it would have no referent.
John I think you were replying to rjw (still) not to me? You quoted rjw quoting me then rjw talking – i.e I’m not the one who called it sophistry.
@11 John Morales,
I’m impressed, such big words, your next task is to construct an argument, not a straw man.
It’s often difficult to take you seriously as an interlocutor, this is another instance.
theobromine: Eep! You’re right that what I said could be understood that way, but I wasn’t thinking of anything like that. I’ll have to remember to make myself clear!
I’m talking only about expressions — speech, art, philosophies, dance — people might find objectionable. I’m trying to say nobody should be subjected to somebody else’s talk/ideas/ads if they don’t want to be. I see it as analogous to the physical right not to be hit or even touched. That doesn’t mean other people have to disappear; it just means they can’t invade your physical body space. Yet somehow we haven’t yet caught up to the fact that we have an equivalent right not to have our attention assaulted. I shouldn’t have to listen to Limbaugh if I don’t want to — he can talk, I should just be able to avoid hearing him. So don’t put him on the PA system at the airport. If he’s taking a plane and sits next to me, that’s another whole matter. That’s not what I’m talking about.
Does that make it clearer? Or even more confusing? (I hope not!)
[meta]
Ophelia @12, yes. I meant to signify that my response to rjw1 was to a response addressed to you, but I did it poorly.
—
rjw1 @13, I made three contentions in response to three of your opinions.
Which, if any, do you either not understand or dispute?
Show no mercy.
In many Australian Aboriginal cultures, images of people who have died are taboo.
The multicultural SBS TV prefaces many TV programs with a warning to people with such sensibilities: “the following program may be offensive to some viewers because….”
People who are likely to find certain ideas, or challenges to certain ideas distressing should be likewise warned and given the opportunity to tune out or head for the exit. But they cannot be allowed to run the game.
http://www.sbs.com.au/