Author (#1)November 2007 Archives
This raises an even larger question. Why would a classroom agreeing upon naming of the teddy bear as Muhammad cause such anger in Sudan? Is it truly that sacred? These are not the questions being raised, no doubt, in Sudan. The question there is how harsh should the punishment be for such an insolent infidel.
Religion, no doubt, is the cause of this. Secularism in their society has a very weak hold and blasphemy, even in the weak case as this one, is found to be a punishable offense. One wonders if such a large outcry would occur if a classroom decided to name a teddy bear "Jesus" in the U.S. Undoubtedly very little.
Even so, the U.S. has had recent battles regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in federal buildings, and it is easy to forget the slippery road this could lead to. While I won't go as far as to say that we could become a full-fledged theocracy, it is easy to forget that the separation of church and state is a vital piece of American secularism and stability.
It is easy to look at countries like Sudan and criticize their backwards intolerance to alternative belief systems. Their rhetoric however rings true to the same rhetoric used by the most religious in the fiery evangelist circles and it is evident those that wish to see their religious beliefs mandated by law must not gain power or more influence in this country. They guise imprisonment as freedom for their beliefs, while secretly trying to overshadow the freedom of others.
The Sudan incident should serve as a reminder of the power religion can have over unsuspecting populations. We should take the warning and look at ourselves before we find ourselves looking into a very grave and dark mirror with a reflection we find all too eerily familiar to the very nations we scoff at.
The website is called “Atheist Peace” and I believe that requires some explanation. As it were, my beliefs and passions are strong and if there is one thing I'm truly compassionate about it is the idea that atheism can lend oneself to true peace, within and without.
I'll admit my personal atheism is dredged in romanticism but I have no qualms about that. I believe that this life I have is a fragile and beautiful thing, something that should be cherished and protected. It is from this personal belief that I find peace. This sense of peace is strong but it doesn't dictate my life. I don't even bother to think about it most of the time, and as many could attest I'm sure, it is a wonderful thing.
How can atheism bring peace though? Atheism in of itself is simply disbelief in any deities. One might be puzzled at how such a thought could bring any peace, and many theists are in fact puzzled by this. While the complete answer is complicated, I believe a simple summary could be as follows:
When one takes away any supernatural forces controlling or influencing humankind, what is left? Simply man and his own conscience. It is through this realization that peace is had. A peace in a sense of that despite mankind and all of its irrationality, we've made it this far only with ourselves at the reins, and we have accomplished many great things.
While many may shiver at the thought of humankind controlling their own destiny one may find comfort in the fact that we are truly in control of our destiny, and the time has come to capitalize on it. No religion on Earth can show humankind the path to a truly just and fair society. Many with religious leanings may decry such rhetoric and it is fully hollow.
Religion, inherently, is a system of control. Theistic belief in general, even those with a “personal relationship with Jesus” are within a system of control. One doesn't question theistic belief from within said belief. It is simply not compatible. After all, who has the authority to question the will of God?
In atheistic disbelief, one is free from unquestionable systems of control. Now, I won't declare humankind completely void of control within a secularist society. (As a quick note, I mean a secularist society in the sense of a society that doesn't, as a whole, seek out theistic notions for public discourse. Many within a secularist society could have religious beliefs.) One only has to look at China or Stalinist Russia to see where control can be instituted even without religion or theistic beliefs at the helm of said control. However, in secularist societies one will find that rules and laws are not absolute.
When only humans make the rules and systems, they can be questioned. Nobody can fairly or justly stop questioning of our laws and customs. One only has to look at a comparison of the American judicial system where laws may be challenged and change, and the judicial system in Saudi Arabia or Iran where the rule of Islamic belief is final and absolute.
When one ejects theistic notions and beliefs out of public discourse on policy one forces everyone to think critically and think within the scope of humankind in of itself. Our actions no longer have to answer to a higher authority, but rather to the impact on humankind.
Let's take a hot button cliché issue that has been in public debate for a long time: abortion. Now there are many theists and atheists both for and against abortion for a myriad of reasons. Now, in public discourse the religious among us have dragged the debate into when a fetus gets a soul, or how their gods view conception. Now, we take any notion of theistic beliefs out of the equation, what is left?
We will find a rational discussion not on the validity of the soul of the fetus; this no longer matters anymore without theistic beliefs. The question could easily be turned on the safety of the procedures. Undoubtedly abortion could have been outlawed before on medical grounds! The lack of safety was a major issue. Today, however, the procedures tend to be safer for the women and we may find a shift towards allowing it. The non-theological arguments against abortion are far and few between, but one could argue against abortion of late term pregnancies based on the consciousness of the fetus inside. A legitimate debate about consciousness could arise on purely non-theistic grounds.
The benefit of this is that irrationality is left at the door and logical thinking about the issue comes to the forefront. Everyone is forced to frame the issue within human terms and conditions, not on the conditions if impossible to please malevolent deities. One isn't left with purely axiomatic stances that are based in what one simply feels without any justification.
Another issue: school prayer. Can one have a non-theistic debate about something inherently theistic? Of course. The obvious solution is to not allow school sponsored prayer due to the diverse nature of the student body. Does tradition override the freedom from religion? Of course not, this would be as bad as holding an absolute theistic belief on the matter. While schools may not sponsor prayer students should be allowed to pray as they wish on their own time, as current law allows for. One of the biggest lies of the Religious Wing of the United States is the ridiculous notion that “prayer was taken out of the schools.” No such thing has occurred.
This is the agreement reached in the U.S. regardless of the Religious Wing waving empty rhetoric about how schools would fail and all Hell would break loose without school prayer. As usual, their predictions proved to be eerily devoid of any validity.
How does all of this tie into peace? Well, I hope by now one could tell how a secularist society could find peace as a whole. When theistic discussion is left one is, as said before, forced to discuss things in terms of humankind. While it won't completely erase societal ills and war, one will find that such things simply can't last as long. After all, Islamic oppression is still strong after nearly two thousand years, yet Communist Russia barely lasted two or three generations. Unjust institutions and systems of control are inherently weaker within a society that favors rational discussion rather than irrational beliefs.
That is what this website is about. It is about peace through atheism, both personally and within societies. It is about finding hope in rational discourse internally and externally. It is about finding peace while still questioning and challenging the systems in place. For it is better to be uncertain and questioning than sure and oppressed.
So with that, here is to all of us finding “Atheist Peace.”
Out
