Will Atheists Stand in Solidarity With Muslims?

[rug]

December 6, 2016
by Adam Lee

This election was an ugly demonstration of how many racists and bigots there still are in this country, even in liberal and cosmopolitan areas. And Donald Trump’s victory has tremendously emboldened them, as we saw in an ugly story from New York City this week:

Straphangers stood by and watched as three drunk white men repeatedly screamed “Donald Trump!” and hurled anti-Islam slurs Thursday at a Muslim Baruch College student before trying to rip her hijab off of her head on an East Side subway, the woman told the Daily News.

…They kept screaming Trump’s name at her, and then said, “Oh look, a (expletive) terrorist,” she said.

“Get the hell out of the country!” they yelled during the train ride. “You don’t belong here!”

This isn’t just an anecdote, but one data point in a worrying trend: according to FBI statistics, anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S. peaked in 2015 at levels not seen since 9/11. And there have been even more reports of hate crimes and harassment since the election, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

While it’s been re-echoed to the point of cliche, this is the appropriate place to quote Martin Niemoller’s famous poem:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

Although time and historical distance have blurred the context, the point is that the victims of Nazi persecution weren’t chosen randomly. They were targeted because they were the groups that were smallest, most disliked, most “other” – the ones whom the German public would feel the least sympathy for. (Other versions of the poem, which list communists, the incurably ill, and Jehovah’s Witnesses among the targets, make this clearer.) Each group, as it fell under the regime’s shadow, gradually pushed the boundaries of what was seen as acceptable and got the general public accustomed to what was happening, so that there’d be less of a protest at the next step.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2016/12/will-atheists-stand-solidarity-muslims/#sthash.JXwtEGi2.dpuf

[HAB911]

1. Atheists of DU will.......n/t

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

2. I believe so...

since we have no god to answer to just ourselves, our conscious drives our actions. Since we know discrimination first hand, the honorable atheist will stand up for others being attacked for their beliefs.

[DesertFlower]

3. this atheist will.

[Bretton Garcia]

8. I speak out against most violence; whoever the victim is

But don't expect a very adamant defence of any religion.

Just basic human rights.

[LongtimeAZDem]

4. Of course they will; the real question is, will Muslims stand with atheists?

People seem to think that Muslims will be the primary target if religious fascism takes hold; it is far more likely that the first salvos will be against the "godless".

If that happens, I expect that the safety pins will disappear pretty quickly.

[rug]

5. It's this hierarchy of persecution you assert that gives me pause.

[Bretton Garcia]

6. Though you yourself defend Christianity angrily at times

Probably more angrily than you defend Muslims.

In any case, the closest threat to atheists is not Muslims. But in a Christian country? Christians.

Accordingly, they often get the most attention here. Though Muslims are periodically mentioned here, priority is based on the ... proximity and immediate magnitude of the threat.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. We've dug the trenches and built the wall between church and state.

Everything we've done protects religion from government, and government from religion.
We just need more bodies manning the wall. They are free to join us.


For now, everything we do to reinforce the wall of separation, they gain from. And we've been doing it for a long time.

(So have some of them, and their efforts are welcome.)

[Bretton Garcia]

9. I agree that separation of church and state is good

Though I add that if religion and secular thought are ever joined or overlap? Then the secular side should typically prevail.

In the case of religious wars, secular humanism mostly demands that wars should end.

Or if the Bible at times supports science? Then as it turns out, science should get priority finally, over all other content.

In the meantime though, as a cultural historian, I'd have to note that past religion can't be accurately described, without noting say, theocracies. Inappropriate as any such thing would be today, you can't describe religious history without noting them.

It's simple to also add the warning that such theocracies are illegal in democracy.

In fact, the reason the Founders separated church and state, is evident in the Middle East. Where religious efforts to take over the state, cause the continual massacre of opposing faiths, and nonbelievers. Even to this very day.

Yes, separation of church and state are very, very important. But if they ever overlap, as they have historically? Then secular thought should outweigh religious considerations.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. I would argue that the engines and organs of government should be secular, in a sense.

I take the sandbox model. Everyone gets to play in the sandbox, but the sandbox itself is agnostic/secular. If it's not, then the sandbox can't truly be considered an open level playing field in which everyone can express themselves freely.

[Bretton Garcia]

11. Sounds good

[LongtimeAZDem]

12. Those coming into power deny that such a wall exists, and have demonstrated no reluctance

in disregarding law and tradition.