In response to calls that atheists should stay quiet in Malaysia, our contributor explains why they can’t just do that.
When GaySec wrongly accused Arlene Tan of being the anonymous anti-Islam blogger Makcik Hajjah Sitt Al-Wuzara, there was an encouraging show of support for Arlene from sensible people, both religious believers and non-believers.
Yet even among those who condemned GaySec’s irresponsible smear campaign, there were some who openly wondered if Arlene’s own criticisms of religion contributed to her recent ordeal. A few of her supporters have gone so far as to suggest that critics of religion, particularly atheists, should just STFU and refrain from antagonising the faithful.
This call for atheists to censor themselves is wrongheaded. It also casts undeserved blame on Arlene Tan, who has done nothing to warrant the horrible experience she went through. The guilt lies entirely with GaySec and their rabid supporters. They are guilty of two things: falsely accusing an innocent person of criticisms she did not make, and responding to those criticisms with an apoplectic rage that is ridiculously disproportionate to the actual injury caused.
Secularism is on the rise in many parts of the world, and religious groups aren’t happy about it. A favourite pushback tactic of theirs is to cry discrimination, that their rights are being trampled on by the godless. If they’re referring to their ‘right’ to be bigots, to be shielded from criticism, to be accorded special privileges like tax-exempt status and unelected political power, and above all to be unquestioningly respected, then yes, such ‘rights’ should be denied to them.
Religious groups demand these pseudo-rights because they understand – and fear – the consequences of not having them: they would be forced to compete with more liberal, rational, progressive and humane ideas on equal terms. A level playing field in the great social debate humanity has with itself is a prospect that frightens the religious. Without the cocoon of special privileges combined with secularist stigma, religious arguments would be exposed to the harsh light of reason and evidence-based scrutiny – and they would promptly wither.
Atheists, humanists and freethinkers know that they have a better than good chance of winning in a fair ideological fight. Religious groups are aware of this, so they try to silence their opponents either by force or by the more subtle yet no less deplorable method of tarring them as supposedly strident, aggressive, militant, arrogant, simplistic polemicists. As atheist activist Adam Lee writes in a blog post:
In their furious hushing of atheists and demanding that we be more respectful, in their efforts around the world to pass bills punishing speech that insults or denigrates religion, we see that what the major religious groups and their allies want is to silence dissent. Again, they don’t want to compete in a marketplace of ideas; they want society to be their parishioners, sitting in enforced silence while they alone stand in the pulpit and preach.
The need for atheists to speak out against the lies, harms and hypocrisies of religion is greater in societies that remain under the thrall of backward, oppressive, misogynistic beliefs. It is unremarkable to be an outspoken atheist in a liberal, irreligious, egalitarian society. But for secularists in places like Pakistan or conservative Middle Eastern countries, being a critic of religion takes incredible courage.
In a society gripped by religion, each time an atheist dares to speak out against it, one risks physical harm, even death, at the hands of the fanatical elements of the Belief Brigade. That one needs to be brave to stand for truth, reason and knowledge is in itself a terrible indictment of religion and the maliciously bigoted segment of its believers.
Despite the heated polemics of those like the New Atheists and their supporters, not one of them would ever call for religious believers to be killed, maimed, raped or tortured as a warning to other believers. While religion has no monopoly on violence and cruelty, it shows an appalling tendency for both.
We have the current situation prevalent in religious parts of the world where violent, often murderous, intolerance towards heathens, infidels and unbelievers is encouraged, even celebrated, by self-appointed dispensers of God’s justice. We witnessed as much from those who bayed for Arlene Tan’s blood over a perceived slight to their religion’s dignity.
Secularists everywhere must not be cowed by such thuggery. Religious bullies have little more than incoherent anger and childish oversensitivity to sustain their position. Like all cowards, their aggression melts away when it is opposed by intelligent, articulate, passionate secularists supporting each other in a show of solidarity.
As for those religious believers who may not aggressively confront their critics but nonetheless wish that these critics would simply be quiet and mind their own business, they will be continually disappointed. Their religious beliefs, like all beliefs, are not immune to criticism.
The same liberal ideals that guarantee them the freedom to believe in fairy tales and deities also allow others to question, dismiss and mock their convictions. Of course, believers have the right to argue back. What they do not have the right to do is forcibly gag those who disagree with them.
Adam Lee writes:
There’s a lesson here for freethinkers: to win the debate, we just have to show up. If we can speak freely and make our case, we’ve already won. If we can successfully claim the same rights and the same privileges as religious people, we’ve already won. If ordinary people have friends and family who are atheists, and know that they have friends and family who are atheists, we’ve already won. If the battle is waged on a level playing field, our victory is assured, because we know that in an open and fair debate, our arguments are the better ones and will carry the day. It’s only coercion and prejudice that can hold us back, and both those obstacles are weakening and falling one by one.
Yes, secularist arguments are indeed the better ones, for they are based on reason, evidence and universal values. This is why certain religious believers would rather we didn’t voice them. And this is why it is important that we do.
