There is a gaping, atheist-shaped hole in the interfaith movement

[rug]

Religious and secular people alike can benefit from a deeper understanding by engaging with each other on common values

Rory Fenton
guardian.co.uk, Monday 10 October 2011 03.00 EDT

When I tell people I'm an atheist and work on interfaith relations, they think I'm mad. They point out that I grew up in Northern Ireland – surely that experience alone should put me off working with religion, given the suffering it caused? Of course, I saw the segregation and violence like most did, but the Troubles itself was not religious. We killed over history, not heresy and the border, not the Bible. In truth the Troubles was tribal – a decent into "us" and "them".

And can't we atheists at times also fall into this trap? When faced with the horrors of religious extremism it can seem that religion itself is to blame, that the fact of faith marks a person as fundamentally flawed, dangerous even. But while it is patently clear that atrocities are committed daily in the name of religion, we mustn't repeat the mistakes of Northern Ireland; we mustn't allow differences to become tribal markings. The true enemy of the secular movement is religious extremism and here we can find many allies within religion itself. Just as Martin Luther King worked with whites to end segregation and Gandhi worked with Muslims to free India, we too must be willing to reach out to build on common goals.

This isn't easy, and lines must always be drawn, but as Imperial College's first interfaith officer I experienced at first hand how this can be achieved. Through organising events valuing constructive dialogue over confrontational debate, I saw how common ground can be found and understanding deepened. Through actively engaging one another in controversial topics, moral and personal, religious and non-religious people alike were able to gain a deeper, more genuine understanding of each other. None of this has changed my own view: I remain as faithless as before and I doubt I have "deconverted" anyone either. But as a humanist I believe in the good in people, even if expressed in religious language. In this, my beliefs have been confirmed and strengthened.

Engaging with the religious should never mean hiding or compromising on our own beliefs. When communities minister Andrew Stunell attended one of our events, he was keen to stress his "Baptist heritage". It was only afterwards that one of his aides told us he was actually atheist yet felt the need to seem religious to talk to us. But the common language at interfaith events isn't that of religion – what a Hindu and a Christian mean by "God" are, after all, two very different things; the common language is that of common values.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/10/atheists-interfaith-movement?newsfeed=true

[iris27]

1. Shocker, given that atheism isn't a faith.

Also, this..."But the common language at interfaith events isn't that of religion – what a Hindu and a Christian mean by "God" are, after all, two very different things; the common language is that of common values."

...has not been my personal experience. The interfaith events at my college were very AA-esque, meaning, not caring much about the specifics, but you'd darn well better believe in a higher power.

[Meshuga]

2. "Interfaith events" can be religious in nature

But an interfaith event can be just an event to get people from different religions to understand each other. Like the quotes you provided, the Hindu and Christian religions are incompatible and it is hard to reconcile a religious event. It's hard to imagine a meeting between religious and non-religious groups with the goal of combating "religious extremism" as a religious-like congregation. Instead, I would imagine a group of people getting together to discuss a problem and come up with possible ways of dealing with the problem.

[LeftishBrit]

3. +1

E.g. at some universities, such as London and Oxford, there are 'MuJews' societies for Muslims and Jews to have joint activities and discussions, to achieve greater mutual understanding. Similarly, there are organizations for joint activities between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland - still regrettably segregated groups. These are organizations for increasing contact and preventing or resolving cultural and religious conflicts.

I think there is also a big role for including the nonreligious in such activities and groups. On a much more informal level, I think I have benefitted quite a lot personally from interactions with people from a wide variety of religions. It's a way of learning about the world, the same as interacting with people from a wide variety of linguistic or cultural backgrounds. And no one has ever made more than a token attempt to convert me.

The article in the OP relates to the UK. I realize that the situation is different in the USA, where the religious right has far more dominance.

[Kurmudgeon]

5. Then atheists shouldn't have an opinion on faith and shouldn't judge it.

That's exactly like a virgin's opinions on reproduction.
However, there is no proof there is nothing after death, same as there is no proof that there is.
Just circumstantial evidence at best.
So we're all relying on faith, if you'd only be honest to yourself.
I'm sure this will all be dismissed with a glib statement or an all purpose remark/insult.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Then by the same token religious people shouldn't have an opinion on atheism and shouldn't judge it

In fact, I *don't* have much of an opinion about faiths, and *don't* judge them, until and unless people force religious beliefs or religious laws on other people.

[trotsky]

7. "That's exactly like a virgin's opinions on reproduction."

Ever hear of an organization called the Catholic Church?

[Goblinmonger]

8. If that faith never impacts my life, I won't.

But if you were being honest and not just dismissing what I am saying, you would agree that faith is very frequently forced into our government and we get religious bullshit like DOMA. If you want to believe something, I have no problem with that and won't judge it until it is shoved down my throat. At that point, I think I get to make a comment albeit muffled.

[cleanhippie]

9. All of that is dismissed because it is laughably ignorant nonsense.

A virgins opinion of reproduction? So a virgin should have no opinion on reproduction? What the fuck does that even mean?

Nothing after death? What in the hell are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything at all?

Circumstantial evidence? Evidence of what? What are you talking about?

What are "we all relying on faith" for? Again, what in the hell are you talking about?



DO you even KNOW what it is you are trying to say, or is your need to just respond so great that whatever nonsense you decide to post is ok?

[NMMNG]

15. Atheists have every right to have an opinion on faith and to judge it

1. Many (if not most) atheists used to have faith and practice some form of religion thanks to childhood indoctrination. We generally have first hand knowledge of at least one faith, sometimes two or more. Furthermore, a recent study showed atheists are actually more knowledgeable than other groups when it comes to religion. There's no reason we should remain silent about the subject.
2. Religion impacts our daily lives--and not just from private citizens. Our government is infested with it (National Day of Prayer, Faith Based Initiative, prayers before government functions, religious displays on public property, government officials making prayers and religious speeches, etc.). Why should we remain silent about something that we're inundated with--and which our tax dollars support?
3. Religious people don't hold back from expressing faith-based opinions and judgements about other people, or from using those opinions/judgements to harm others (restricting LGBT rights, bans on abortion and birth control, harassing atheists and members of minority religions, impeding scientific research, etc). Accordingly why should atheists be required to remain silent when religious people have free reign?

[Warpy]

4. I always saw the Troubles as anticolonial at heart

because once the partition had occurred, Protestant churches in the Republic stayed standing and their congregations met and their flocks remained employed.

You'd think the Ulster Protestants would have noticed that, but Paisley and his ilk were able to keep them riled up with the notion that if the Republicans got their way, the churches would be burned to the ground along with all their businesses.

[Jim__]

10. "... we mustn't allow differences to become tribal markings."

Absolutely! If we don't stop dividing the world into us and them, then we'll eventually blow ourselves off the earth. It's really that simple.

[cleanhippie]

11. How can we accomplish that goal, especially when religion DEPENDS on that division?

:shrug:

[Jim__]

12. Ah, it's them! If only everyone were like us.

Religious and secular people alike can benefit from a deeper understanding by engaging with each other on common values

[cleanhippie]

13. Aw, now come on.

You know that is not what I said nor ment. But those tribal division is what makes each denomination unique, and that division is what fuels the collection plates.

[Deep13]

14. I work and hang out with religious people all the time.

I have no doubt we share many common values. I'm happy to work toward social just and other necessary causes with them. But there's really no point sitting around talking about faith with them. I'll either piss them off or else have to censor myself and pretend I think they are reasonable when I don't think that. I'm not that much of a hypocrite. What believers of all varieties have in common is they all think I'm wrong about god/s just as the reverse is true. I don't believe in belief/faith, modesty, chastity, patience, redemption or the need for it, unqualified forgiveness, suppression of "negative" emotions, rejection of materialism or a bunch of other things that religious people (and even many former religious people) accept as true. There's no point discussing these things with people I basically like and agree with on non-religious concerns.

[Deep13]

16. "Religious and secular people alike can benefit from a deeper understanding by engaging...

... with each other on common values"

Two points that I overlooked before. First of all, the secular people are those who want religion out of government. They are not necessarily atheistic.

Second, what makes you think they don't understand each other? I think they do and they don't like what they see in each other. Not all disagreements come from ignorance or misunderstanding. Sometimes people just disagree.

In this case the only way deeper understanding will solve the rift is if upon examination of the facts one side admits it is wrong and that the other side is right. I suppose this could conceivably happen to the theistic side. If the atheistic side discovered it was wrong, it would then have to ascertain which, if any, of the religious groups is right. Because there are not simply two sides of this argument. Each of the religious groups disagrees with all the rest of them.