Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

"A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon."

Washington Post, Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman, April 30

The Intolerant Tolerance

The headline refers to a particular Norwegian debate, but it is fairly relevant to the Atheist movement. I wrote a blog post about in Norwegian, but here's one for the international market!

A common criticism levelled at conservative Christians have been that they are intolerant, especially towards gays. This type of criticism generally comes from liberals, and it's not concerned with scripture. It doesn't really care about religion at all, just tolerance.

In 2004, a Norwegian political commentator and editor, Harald Stanghelle, then warned that this tolerance (that the liberals advocated) was getting increasingly intolerant towards believers, and writing a piece about this, he used the phrase "the intolerant tolerance". The case in question was about how politicians wanted to force a Norwegian missionary organisation called Misjonsforbundet to allow gays and unwed couples into their organisation. Stanghelle is by no means a religious conservative, so it was not a right-wing backlash or anything. He was merely preaching tolerance towards the intolerant.

Late in February, this year, a whole shit storm was kicked up because Aftenposten, the paper that Stanghelle works for(and where he's the political editor), awarded a local Islamist, Mohammed Usman Rana, 10 000 NOK for an op-ed called "The secular extremism" where he criticized that Norwegians are intolerant towards religion. (Rana had earlier said this "I disapprove of the death penalty for homosexuality, but I am not a theologian or an Islam scholar and so I will not answer to what they do in other countries.",(English) so you know the type.). And in a comment a few days after Rana's op-ed was published, and all Hell broke loose, Stanghelle wrote a piece to defend the decision. It was called "Triumph of the godless?" and again he wrote about "the intolerant tolerance",– three times.

Stanghelle is, however, missing the point. Not everyone who puts on their shiny armour is out to fight for tolerance, but justice –- for instance. For what is right, not for what is tolerant. I don't think it was tolerance that was on the minds of those politicians who wanted also religious organisations to abide by Norwegian law, I think it was a sense of justice, and a feeling that they were fighting for the rights of a minority.

Justice can mean that you instead of handing out tolerance in all directions, be it towards Nazis or EMOs, you actively support the group that is most deserving.

Justice is not a simple concept. Those who believe they know what is right and wrong can be seriously mistaken, and will occasionally walk straight into fanaticism. The road to Hell is truly paved with good intentions. However, tolerance is also a good intention. It is in fact quite rare to hear people not advocating something with some or another good intention.

The difference between the two types of arguments(justice vs. tolerance), is that the ones who are concerned with justice, and what is right and wrong make an ethical judgement, while the tolerant doesn't have to. This is not to say that tolerant people do not think ethically, but an argument based on tolerance alone does not need to be founded on any other foundation than "Who cares?"

When I tolerate something, it's because I don't care. I tolerate bad music and art, and I tolerate traffic up to a certain point but if I say that I tolerate violent crime and exploitation, then my tolerance looses its charm. Then it's merely laissez faire.

In Stanghelle's comment from 2004, he wrote about Misjonsforbundet denying openly gays and unwed couples to get membership. He wrote that their opinion is hardly original, that it's shared by religious organisations throughout the world. But that "it doesn't fit the Norwegian zeitgeist in 2004".

He may think that his argumentum ad populum works to his advance, but it's quite to the contrary. Yes, Misjonsforbundet does not represent a minority. Strong forces in Russia, USA, the Middle East, Africa and probably lots of other places, are pressuring to force the homos back into the closet once and for all. It means that Misjonsforbundet is merely a part of a larger international tendency, and we have an obligation to do our job here.

So then the question is: do we want justice or tolerance? If we choose tolerance, we will have to expect to be criticized for not being tolerant enough to those we disagree with. It's a sort of Catch 22. You may perfectly well be tolerant if you like, but once you work against intolerance, you're not any better yourself. In the 90s, in Norway, anti-racists made the error that they used "tolerance" as a slogan, even if they were not particularly tolerant when they met a racist on the street. Instead of saying that they somehow promoted tolerance, which they weren't, they should have said that they were against racism because its unfair. That would do it. I'm against racism. It's not because I'm tolerant. I'm against it because it's unscientific, it's unfair, and it's bad for society. I don't need to resort to "tolerance".

And when I defend gays against religion, it's not because I'm tolerant towards the gays, but because I think it's the only right thing to do and the antipathy against gays is hardly scientific. I don't do it unconditionally. I know my bible, and I know that it does not favour homosexuality. And if there are good scientific arguments against, say adoption for gays, I would be listening (so far there's only been religious ad hoc-noise). The point is: gays have the best case. Not necessarily to become members of a religious organisation, but by being a minority that religious people throughout the world are violently picking on.
I only have to chose between defending people who are the way they are because of biology and between defending people who are as bigoted as they are because of theology. I rank biology over religious bigotry any day.

Intolerant tolerance becomes a problem to Stanghelle as well, because he's tolerant to Islamists and he prefer that we are too. So it's another Catch 22: he is intolerant to our intolerance towards their intolerance. Might it not have been be better if he had merely said he was for or against gays in Misjonsforbundet, or if he was for or against what Mohammed Usman Rana wrote?

The problem with tolerance as an ideal is that it does not inform us, because all roads are just as valid. But if one point of view is reasonable and the other is hair-raising, it doesn't mean that a compromise between the two is the best option.

It is also far more interesting to hear religious criticism against Atheism than smartass "Everything is all right stop this arguing right now" from other Atheists or liberal religious people.

One argument is an argument you can answer, and maybe even agree upon. The other one is authoritarian, merely inviting you to shut up.

I'm by no means against tolerance. A liberal society is after all the best kind of society, and intolerance is a negative thing to me too. But tolerance and intolerance are simply very vague terms that don't mean anything. I mean, Stanghelle would never have said that it was unfair that Misjonforbundet could not bar gay and unwed couples from becoming members. It's not unfair at all, that they have to abide by Norwegian law. He just picked the buzz word of all modern democracies, tolerance, and pretended it meant anything at all, but even a liberal society has to be protected by the law.

Tolerance can also be self-exterminating when you're up against forces that are generally more intolerant than average, like Islamists. Tolerance can therefore not be absolute. You can be against violence, even if you retain your right to self defence.

"We have the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should tolerate even them whenever we can do so without running a great risk; but the risk may become so great that we cannot allow ourselves the luxury. Karl Popper, paraphrase by Richard Robinson, An Atheist's Values (page 215)

In Norway, there's a Neo-Nazi/Neo-Pagan group called Vigrid. I tolerate them. It's because there are not one or two billions of these morons in the world. But if Vigrid is awarded 10 000NOK for writing their opinions in Aftenposten, then I will have to protest.

Turkey: Atheism almost as bad as unwed couples

"The increase in hostility toward the EU appears to be part of a recent rise in nationalism and xenophobia. According to a survey conducted by the Economic and Social Research Center of Bahcesehir University in Istanbul, 44% of Turks do not trust foreigners very much, and 29% do not trust them at all. There was a similar reluctance to tolerate those living in Turkey who did not share mainstream Turkish values. A total of 88% of those question said that they would not want a homosexual as a neighbor, while 63% said that they would not want an atheist to move in next door. A further 65% said that they would not want to live next to an unmarried couple and 30% said that they would not want a neighbor who did not fast during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan."

Eurasia Monitor, Friday, February 8, 2008

Most gays suffer discrimination because their abuser is religious

""Two colleagues have gone through horrible experiences with immediate supervisors acting in an outrageously barbaric way towards them, one of them in particular prompted by religion.
"That colleague suffered a great deal of homophobic abuse and eventually reported it. The force reacted quickly. The officer against whom the allegations were made was suspended, welfare was provided for the gay officer, and that's now going to a conduct tribunal. So it's being taken very seriously, which is encouraging."
The abusive supervisor in this case regarded gay people as an abomination in the eyes of God. "The evidence from our 24-hour help-line is that the majority of people who suffer discrimination are treated in that way because their abuser is religious," says Lyle. "It's a mix of different religions, but is predominantly people who claim to be evangelical or fundamental Christians."

Scotland On Sunday, 27 January 2008

Execute gays?

Two stories on execution of gays from respectively Muslims and Christians.

Norway: Islamic Council turns to European Fatwa Council for ruling on homosexuals

Jim Rudd on Gays: Arrest, Imprison, and Execute Gays in the Name of God?

So Many Christians Ignorant About Their Bible

"We can start with this great little post by the Educated Eclectic from Pam's House Blend. It is widely known that fundamentalist Christians rely on Leviticus to justify their preexisting hatred of GLBT individuals. Their argument is quite simple:

The bible is the inerrant word of some god.
The bible condemns homosexuality (in Leviticus).
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

The first claim is accepted uncritically for it is a core tenet of Christian fundamentalism. That the bible condemns homosexuality is clearly evident in Leviticus. So the conclusion is inevitable, at least to the fundamentalist Christian.

The Educated Eclectic invites us to apply exactly the same argument to another part of Leviticus.

Leviticus 19:19 says:

.. neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

There is nothing in the Christian bible to suggest that this portion of Leviticus is any less serious than the part about homosexuality. And yet, the inescapable conclusion is that wearing clothing made of linen-wool blends is wrong in the same way homosexuality is wrong. I see two possible explanations for the fact that fundamentalist Christians ignore this passage. First, they are unaware of what the rest of Leviticus says, suggesting that they are not the Christians they claim to be. Second, their objections to homosexuality have absolutely nothing to do with their bibles and are simply based in prejudice."

Atheist Revolution, 28. august

75% of gay kids in faith schools suffer homophobic bullying

"Homophobic bullying plagues the majority of UK schools and shocking levels of bullying are meted out to school pupils and teachers who either are gay or perceived to be gay.

[...]

That figure jumps to 75% of young gay people attending faith schools.

[...]

In faith schools, religious disapproval and thoughtless disregard for LGB issues, compounds the tendencies of bullies to target gay and lesbian students even more."

Pinknews.co.uk, 26th June 2007

[Stats] Religion, tax-evasion and violence top list of ad complaints

"Consumers complained about a record number of adverts last year -- including those of a gay association, government department and fashion giant.

[...]

An advert by the Gay Police Association -- picturing a Bible to highlight religious motivation behind homophobic incidents -- was the most maligned.
It attracted 553 complaints, with people finding it offensive to Christians and discriminatory in tone."

Scotsman.com 09-May-07

Discriminatory in tone?

Leviticus: 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Much better and not discriminatory in tone!