This is a response to an e-mail I recently received from a reader:
Hi, my name is A******. I live in ********. I am 25 and have been non-religious for close to twelve years. I have always questioned religion on my own, but never had the courage to voice my opinion like I should. I believe that one should always see the other side and respect others views in order to move towards peace in the world. I am told this is very naive. It may be, but I continue to believe that we can unite, religious and non-religious. My question is, is it really that naive? I would want to start a peace movement, but I would need support. I don't know where to go or what to do. What do you think? I am sure many will turn away at the idea that we can all accept and be accepted, but I do not want to be led astray from this view. I thank you and appreciate your viewing and feedback.
Do I think it's naive to think that the religious and non-religious can unite peacefully? Naive? No. Irrationally optimistic? Yes. Of course there's nothing intrinsic in "non-religiousness" that precludes peaceful coexistence, but that's only half of the equation. Most religious ideologies do intrinsically and explicitly preclude peaceful coexistence. Therefore, if:
non-religious = open to peaceful coexistence
and
religious = not open to peaceful coexistence
Then the question can be rephrased as, "Can those open to peaceful coexistence, peacefully coexist with those not open to peaceful coexistence." Obviously the answer to this is "no." Now someone will inevitably respond by saying, "Well not all religious people are unwilling to peacefully coexist with other ideologies." If a religious person is truly willing to peacefully coexist with others, then obviously it would be a possibility. The problem, however, is that determining whether or not a religious group or person is open to peaceful coexistence is difficult, if not impossible to determine, depending of course on their beliefs.
I'd first like to point out that this line of questioning is generally just an attempt at obfuscation. The arguer is generally just trying to insert ambiguity into the argument in an attempt to confuse the arguer and the audience into a state of ambivalence. The fact remains that the religious texts of most religions
explicitly state that nonbelievers should at least be punished, and usually killed in horrible and gruesome ways. Therefore, if people claim to adhere to the dictates of a book, the burden must shift to them to prove that they don't
really believe certain parts of it. This is especially true of religious texts, where it is insufficient to simply say, "I believe everything in there that makes sense," since there is no good evidence for any of it. A further impediment is that most of these texts either implicitly or explicitly command their believers to lie in furtherance of their doctrines. One only need google, "Does Islam permit lying" to find countless references to text and religious figures extolling the virtues of lying to non-Muslims. Mohammed himself supposedly said,
"Lying is wrong, *except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for **war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people." (Ahmad, 6.459) A more entertaining example of this belief can be found here. In that video a Muslim preacher tells a delightful anecdote about lying to a Jew and telling him that Muslims can drink alcohol, after the Jew is converted, he is told that if he drinks alcohol he will be punished, and if he leaves Islam he will be killed. A wonderful story told with an ear-to-ear smile. It's also highly telling of the preachers opinion of Jews that he believes that one's belief hinges solely on whether or not he's allowed to consume alcohol. I wonder how he'd feel I told an anecdote about a person who was Muslim just so he could have multiple wives. But the point is: if X says it's OK to lie, and B says he/she believes in X, then immediately everything B says becomes suspect, especially their claim that they're telling the truth.
I hope it doesn't seem like I'm bashing Islam, it's just the easiest target owing to its explicit endorsement of deceit. But it's actually irrational to expect a religious person not to do whatever necessary to spread their beliefs. I am not saying that the religious belief itself can be rational, but once that belief exists, and it includes things like eternal damnation, it becomes totally rational to do whatever you can to save as many souls as possible. In the grand scheme of things lying is a minor transgression compared to allowing people to burn in hell. This is why most religions have not shied away from far more extreme measures like inquisitions or suicide bombings.
With respect to starting a peace movement, no you don't need to start one, because many more people are already involved in one right now. I don't know of a single non-peaceful atheistic movement. The most prominent nonreligious figures (people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayan Hirsi Ali and many more) have never advocated or even been associated with a single act of violence, at least that I know of. The most important part of any movement is associating with like minded people, and thanks to the internet that is a far easier task than it once was. http://www.the-brights.net/ is a good place to start. Also look at meetup.com for non-religious meetups that you might like to attend. If a group doesn't already exist in your area, start one yourself, I highly doubt you're alone, and you'll never know till you try. Online forums like
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/ are also a good place to interact with like-minded people, and you might be able to find people who live in your area as well.
Lastly, on the issue of voicing your opinion, absolutely you should, though obviously you should do it in a way that is not obnoxious or inconsiderate, or in a way that endangers yourself. It might not make you the most popular person, but should you really care about the opinions of people who find your reasonable beliefs offensive? The people who aren't offended are not only good people, but they might just share your beliefs. The importance of understanding that you're not alone in your beliefs should not be understated. Just look at the recent turmoil in the Middle East. A lot of fuss has been made about the influence of the internet on these uprisings, but the internet itself was only a tool. Through open communication people were able to understand that they were not alone, that others shared their beliefs. Had they not known that, they probably would not have had the courage to stage a revolution. In
this video, around 8:30, Steven Pinker discusses how any mass effort will only occur once "everyone knows that everyone else knows, that everyone knows," something. Otherwise dissenters can be picked off one at a time, which would, in addition, create a disincentive for anyone to dissent in the first place.