Ali Sayed wants atheism to be about justice. Here are his thoughts on the Convention:
It was nice to finally have an atheist convention in Melbourne that brought leading thinkers from around the globe to promote atheism. Even if only to watch these intellectuals repeat the same old arguments proving the astounding absurdity of theistic beliefs in the twenty-first century. But strangely enough, after a weekend of celebration I still find my fellow atheists as confused about atheism post convention as they were before it. Now you may ask, why?
Well for a start we atheists don’t like to be compartmentalised along any ideological lines or for that matter stereotyped in any way or form. As atheists or, as in my case, anti-theists, while we will gladly point to the religious injustices of the past (be it torturing heretics who tried promoting scientific inquiry, or stoning sodomites and adulteresses, and who can forget Christian and Islamic imperialists forcing their beliefs upon millions of indigenous communities to save a few souls), we are gravely reluctant to confront contemporary issues like gay or aboriginal rights or the rights of refugees fleeing god infested nations like Somalia, Sudan, Palestine, etc. Even when we are forced to confront these socio-political questions, after an initial ‘blame the religion’ tirade, a complete disengagement and lack of any resolve to work on issues like these will surface quickly. In short, we are happy to deliberate over wrongs of the past. However, to stand up against the inequities of our time would mean something more than a mere non-belief. It would force us to take sides on issues, instead of organising yet another talk fest. And this is the reason for my disillusionment with this Convention – and in particular with an amoral understanding of atheism.
Some atheists have decided that ‘Atheism’ is an end in itself in the centuries old struggle against religious oppression, when instead it’s only the beginning. By giving up the beliefs that have divided us for this long we can finally start our journey towards eradicating all artificial differences. We atheists know that religion has poisoned every aspect of our lives; it has used the codified doctrines of hatred to invent a whole new level of totalitarian theocracy. And we know that our religious masters for centuries harboured an unfortunate aim of not just controlling our actions but indeed our thoughts. However, we must not forget that to undermine their influence we need to start thinking about ethics, social justice and the eradication of centuries old confusion about right and wrong. Instead of just repeating endlessly an account of human rights violations committed across the globe under the veil of religion, we need to do more; we need to engage and analyse how to stand up for these rights and ideals. Else it’s all talk and no substance.
In this respect, while it was good to host an Atheist Convention in Australia, and those who organized it deserve to be commended on their efforts, it seems we missed a great opportunity to galvanize the atheist community and voice their concerns over the influence of organized religion in the public sphere.
Ali Sayed, is an anti-theist, final year law student at the University of Melbourne, an ex-Muslim and president of Progressive Atheists. He has strong beliefs on political activism and social justice and is currently working with like minded progressive political groups to fight homophobia, racism and fundamentalist religious ideas in our society. He is also involved in joint protest against the Northern Territory Intervention laws. And he is a co-founder of Progressive Atheists Inc who seek to effect a progressive social transformation within our communities. “We fight for secular ideals and freedom from religion: We are committed to voicing issues affecting Indigenous communities, women, minorities and all those who are disadvantaged and marginalized in our society; and we stand as a united front for promoting ideals of social justice and secularism.”
Ali,
Are you, as an ‘antitheist’ against people’s rights to practice religion peacably? Or to hold personal beliefs involving religious or metaphysical ideas?
Or are you simply planning to challenge religious organisations and hold them accountable for anti humanist beliefs they may hold or actions they may commit?
I sincerely hope it’s the latter, for the last thing the world needs is another source of divisiveness.
When you say you fight for secular ideals and freedom from religion it seems a little ambiguous. Surely you ARE free from religion if you want to be. Or are you referring to freeing others from religion. If so, do you mean those who want to be freed, but, for some reason can’t? Or do you mean freeing all people from religion, even those who don’t wish to be ‘freed’ from it?
I do agree that as atheists we ought to be more engaged and active in social issues, and that atheism is not an end in itself. However, whilst I accept your critique of the Convention, being the first in what one hopes of more to come, I see this Convention as being the introductory chapter of a longer book. It would be good if future Conventions move beyond this introduction and on to a more activist approach, reflecting on the achievements that have been made and what still needs to done, and how it can be done.
Thank you Ali, your words reflect my own concerns. I had hoped that the Convention would include a set of resolutions to be put to the government on behalf of attendees, or at least some calls to action – but these were sadly lacking.
While I think that the Convention was an exceptional event and the organizers are to be congratulated for pulling off such a mammoth task in such spectacular style, I fear that it ended with rather a whimper with no concluding comments from the organizers or any suggestions as to how delegates could move forward.
There was clearly plenty of energy and enthusiasm in the room which could have been harnessed better.
As you know, those of us who think similarly, met at the Waterside Hotel in Melbourne during the Convention and have determined to forge a dynamic, project-based, goal-oriented alliance of Australia’s diverse atheist groups.
There are local groups spread across Australia which have, until now, been working independently. They have now agreed to come together to provide greater strength for local action, and to enable a unified voice for state and national action.
It is time we stopped just talking amongst ourselves. We need to move forward with well-considered, responsible and representative affirmative action. The nation-wide enthusiasm and support for this new atheist network shows that at least some of the energy generated by the Convention will be channeled into direct action.
Ali
Worthy sentiments. Secular ideals are worth fighting for. Reason not religion should inform public policy.
But I suspect you will find that organising atheists in a progressive cause is a bit like herding cats. As you say, atheists do not like to be compartmentalised in ideological terms.
Here’s a bit of history about an earlier attempt to mobilise Militant Atheism: http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/roundtable/riding-the-godless-express.php
Perhaps this is the goal for the next convention. There were sparks of action from Dr Leslie Cannold and Russel Blackford
@Michael – There are many of us who are heartily sick of the defeatist ‘you can’t herd cats’ canard being used as an excuse to sit on our arses and grumble amongst ourselves. Theists represent an astounding range of ideologies but have succeeded, over centuries, to organize politically. You can’t tell me that Catholics agree with the Vatican on every issue, and yet the Vatican continues to exert enormous social, political and financial influence throughout the world.
We would certainly not want to model ourselves on the Vatican, but there are issues on which many atheists agree (the outrageous ‘as of right’ tax exemptions for religions, women’s reproductive rights, the right for the terminally ill to choose voluntary euthanasia, the need for a secular state education system, equality for women and same sex couples, and the importance of a strong Constitutional requirement for the separation of church and state, etc.)
The fact is, the cats are already beginning to walk in step. The Secular Coalition for America has united many freethought groups for the purposes of political lobbying, has recently met with White House officials, and attracted a half-million dollar donation from a wealthy benefactor. There is no reason why we cannot achieve the same success here in Australia.
What atheists do object to is a top-down, unrepresentative approach. We don’t want to be told what we believe in. But, a respectful, representative bottom-up organizational structure will incorporate sometimes disparate views and a project-based approach will allow groups/individuals to opt in or out depending on their interests. We have no wish to impose dogma on anyone – but equally, we cannot let our lack of dogma paralyse us.
The non-religious comprise approximately 50% of the Australian population but their voice is not heard because they are not organized. I, for one, refuse to believe the naysayers who say it can’t be done.
I thought there was plenty calls for action. I did however attend the free-thought university alliance meeting so maybe that had something to do with it. The meeting had already convinced me to get engaged with other anti-theists and secularists and DO something. And that was before the conference. I also though the secular party spokesperson (was he the president?) gave a good call for action… No?
Ali, its not atheists that you want as a defined set. Atheism has no motivation for action. You want secularists and humanists, sets that overlap with atheism.
An interesting thing about the conference is that atheism is a common thread to pull these many things together but does not define them. There are of course many theist secularists, and humanists go beyond mere atheism.
Human Rights activists are both theist and atheist but again the convention raised much discussion about human rights.
Ali, all valid points but don’t forget, atheism/anti-theism hasn’t experienced this new ground before. Religion has had the upper hand for millennia. We are just the new kids on the block and organisation will take a little time. That said, I firmly believe that as theism corrodes away, issues such as gay rights, aboriginal rights and the other points you raised will be addressed. Just as Rome wasn’t built in a day or the cosmos wasn’t built in six, herding cats (ref Michael’s post) takes a little time.
Further to Danny Stevens post above, Paul Kurtz’s statement has the advantage of being for something rather than being just an opposition to theism.
For your consideration:http://paulkurtz.net/
As an atheist brought up in the Roman Catholic church, I probably subscibe to a lot of values common to catholics. So I’m not attracted to make political stands from an atheistic pedestal; however, I passionately agree with Richard Dawkins’ comment that religious education for children is a form of child abuse. The proliferation of religious schools this century is a great cause for concern. The National Curriculum must insist that students are delivered a Comparative Religions course alongside any classes in the specific in-house dogma. Let there be ethics!!