LivingWithoutReligion.org
You don't need God— to hope, to care, to love, to live.
To hope, to care, to love. We have all experienced these powerful, fundamental feelings. They help define what it is to be human. These important elements of a fulfilling human life are experienced by religious and nonreligious people alike.
There are some common myths about the nonreligious—atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists. One popular myth is that the nonreligious are immoral, or at least that they can’t be relied upon to be as good as those with religious beliefs. If you know any nonreligious people (and almost everyone does—see below), you already know this is not true. Human decency does not depend on religious belief. There are good believers and good nonbelievers; there are wicked believers and wicked nonbelievers. You can’t predict a person’s moral character just from knowing his or her metaphysical beliefs.
Another prevalent myth is that the lives of the nonreligious are empty, meaningless, and dominated by despair. This, too, is false. The nonreligious experience the same range of emotions, sentiments, and sensations as the religious. They are joyful and sad; they feel sympathy and disgust; they experience pain and pleasure. They have aspirations; they are concerned about others. They love and are loved.
One reason this myth persists is many religious believers see their god or their faith as the basis for emotions such as hope, caring, and love. We don’t deny that the religious may find inspiration in their beliefs—but our religious friends should not presume that accepting their beliefs is necessary for a fulfilling life.
We who are nonreligious lead meaningful lives without reliance on the supernatural. Moreover, we believe anyone can find meaning in a life that is human-centered and focused on the here and now instead of the hereafter.
Some people have parted ways with traditional god beliefs intellectually but hesitate to give up their faith because they’re afraid of what life might be like without the beliefs and practices they have found so comforting. They’ve heard myths about the nonreligious, and they may think these myths are all they have to go on.
But today, one American out of every six has no religious affiliation. You almost certainly have friends, acquaintances, and colleagues—even family members—who already live without religion. If you’ve asked tough questions about your faith and aren’t sure where to go next, we invite you to consider how many people have already found that living without religion provides a foundation for a life that is rich, rewarding, and complete.
Read more on Hope Care Love Live at livingwithoutreligion.org
Press Release: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/living_without_religion/
**************************************************************************
AlterNet - March 28, 2011
"Spreading the Good News About Atheism": Why We Need Atheist Ad Campaigns
By Greta Christina, AlterNet
"Are you good without God? Millions are."
"Imagine no religion."
"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
Atheist ad campaigns are everywhere. Around the U.S. and around the world, atheist organizations have been buying space on billboards, buses, TV and more, with messages ranging from the mild-mannered "Don't believe in God? You are not alone" to the in-your-face "You know it's a myth." The current "Living Without Religion" campaign from the Center for Inquiry, letting the world know that "You don't need God -- to hope, to care, to love, to live" -- is only the latest in a series of advertising blitzes: from American Atheists, the Coalition of Reason, the American Humanist Association, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and many other organizations. Even local student atheist groups have been getting into the act, using buses in their college towns to spread the good news about atheism.
And whenever they do, they are almost guaranteed to garner resistance. Conservative religionists often object vehemently to the very concept of atheist advertising: in many cases trying to get the ad campaigns stopped altogether, and frequently even vandalizing the billboards. (In what has to be the irony of the year, some bus companies have stopped accepting all religious-themed ads, simply so they don't have to accept ads from atheists.) And while moderate and progressive believers have never (to my knowledge) tried to stop these atheist ad campaigns from moving forward, many are still baffled and even offended by the ads. They see them as proselytizing, evangelical... and they don't understand why people who are opposed to religion would be proselytizing and evangelical.
So why do atheists do this?
Why do atheists spend substantial amounts of money and resources to let the world know we exist, and to get our ideas across?
Which Atheists?
The first thing you have to remember is this: Not all atheist ads campaigns are created equal. Different atheist organizations create different ad campaigns, with different goals, and different strategies for achieving those goals. So when you ask, "Why do atheists have to advertise?", the first question you have to answer is, "Which atheists?"
Some atheist ad campaigns, for instance, are purely about visibility. The sole message behind them: "Atheists exist." The folks behind these campaigns know that visibility is key to acceptance of atheists -- just like it's key to acceptance of LGBT people. Simply getting people familiar with atheists, and getting them comfortable with the concept of atheism, goes a long way to countering anti-atheist prejudice and hostility. What's more, the folks behind these campaigns know that plenty of non-believers feel isolated -- cut off from family and friends if they're open about their atheism, hiding in secrecy and silence if they're not -- and they want these people know they aren't alone. It's like the annual Coming Out Day campaign for LGBT people.
Other ad campaigns are about information. They're there to counter myths about atheists. They're not just telling you, "Atheists exist" -- they're telling you, "Atheists exist, and are good, happy people." Misinformation and bigotry against atheists abound, and many atheist ad campaigns -- including the current "Living Without Religion" one from the Center for Inquiry -- are aimed at countering this misinformation. They're aimed at letting the world know that, contrary to popular opinion, atheists have morality, meaning, joy, and hope in our lives... just as much as religious believers. It's like a public service information campaign, letting you know that, contrary to popular opinion, HIV is a treatable illness/Arab Americans are your peaceful hard-working neighbors/the library is open late on Thursdays.
Still other campaigns are trying to gain new members for their atheist groups. They aren't necessarily trying to persuade anyone out of religion... but they know there are non-believers in their communities, people who feel isolated, people who may even think they're the only ones who think they way they do. And they want those folks to know that atheist organizations are available: to provide community, support, education and entertainment, or simply to provide reinforcement for the idea that they aren't crazy or immoral for thinking the way they do. Like a softball team distributing flyers for new players... or AARP advertising for new members, and letting you know about the wonderful programs they have available for people over 50.
And still others are, in fact, actively trying to change people's minds about religion. They're trying to persuade people that atheism is, you know, correct: that there is no God, and people should stop believing... or, at the very least, consider the possibility that their beliefs might be mistaken. Or they're trying to persuade people to respect the separation of church and state, even if they believe in God. Like Pepsi trying to persuade you to buy their products instead of Coke's... or Marriage Equality trying to get you to vote against Prop 8.
Of course, while these ad campaigns do have different goals, many of those goals dovetail and overlap. The "atheist visibility" folks may not be deliberately trying to persuade people out of religion, for instance... but since religion relies on social agreement to perpetuate itself, the mere act of saying "Atheists exist, not everyone believes in God" lays a small but powerful piece of dynamite under its foundations. The "deconversion" folks may be trying to get people to question their faith... but they're also getting atheism on a lot more people's radar. And while the "countering misinformation" campaigns aren't necessarily designed to increase group membership, that's often the effect.
And I would argue that every single one of these goals is valid.
After all -- they're valid for every other human endeavor.
When it comes to every other human idea/affiliation/activity/organization, we think it's perfectly reasonable for people to make themselves visible. To make information available. To let others who might be interested know that a group exists. To persuade others who don't agree to change their minds. When it comes to politics, science, art, medicine, hobbies, philosophy, food, etc., we consider it not only acceptable, but positive and worthwhile, to share our ideas, and to get our points of view into the world, and to make our case when we really think we're right.
Why should atheism be the exception?
If it's okay for Democrats to run ads saying, "Vote Democratic"? If it's okay for the Boston Red Sox to run ads saying, "Go Sox"? If it's okay for the Red Hot Organization to run ads saying, "Safe sex is hot sex"? If it's okay for Greenpeace to run ads saying (seriously) "There's probably no cod, now let's stop overfishing & think of the future"? Then why on Earth is it not okay for the Center for Inquiry to run ads saying, "You don't need God -- to hope, to care, to love, to live"? Or even for American Atheists to run ads saying, "You know it's a myth"?
Why should religion, alone among all other ideas, be entitled to a free ride... free from criticism and questioning and the uncomfortable reminder that not everyone in the world agrees with it?
And in fact, when you look at the ugly responses that atheist ad campaigns typically get, the need for them becomes even more obvious. Religious believers have called the ad campaigns "aggressive," "hateful," "offensive," "a disgrace," "political correctness gone amok," "terrible," "disturbing," and "dangerous." They've said that they "have had their sensibilities assaulted" by the ads, that their beliefs were being "attacked" and "vandalized" by them. They've suggested that someone "accidentally burn" the billboards. They've equated atheist advertisers with Fred Phelps. And these responses are hardly isolated: they're very much in line with general American sentiments about atheists, which view us asthe most disliked and distrusted minority in America.
Of course atheists need visibility -- lots of people are bigoted about us. Of course we need to spread information about who we are -- lots of people are ignorant about us. Of course we need to let other atheists know that support networks are available -- lots of people are hateful about us. Of course we need to advocate for separation of church and state -- lots of people want to make it actually illegal for us to advertise. The very hostility that the atheist ad campaigns generate proves why we need them so badly.
Sauce for the Goose?
Now, some people may think I'm being a hypocrite here. Some people think that religious evangelism sucks, whether it's atheists or believers doing the "evangelizing" -- and they think it's hypocritical for atheists to cut slack for the atheist ad campaigns. "Sure, she doesn't like religious proselytizing," these folks are probably saying, "but she thinks it's totally okay for atheists to try to swell their ranks and change people's minds! How is that fair?"
But these people would be mistaken.
Because I don't, in fact, have any objection to religious evangelists trying to change people's minds.
Don't get me wrong. I have serious objections to many of the religious evangelists' methods. I object to their use of fear-mongering as a form of persuasion; to their offering of false hope; to the way they present unsubstantiated opinion as authoritative fact. I object to their arrogant use of personal experience as the keystone of their case, with little or no understanding of the fallibility of the human mind. I object to their dismissal and even contempt of the most fundamental notions of evidence and reason. I object to their use of social pressure and even shunning to enforce complicity and silence dissent within their ranks. I object to their knocking on people's doors at eight in the morning on a Saturday.
But I do not have any objection whatsoever to the basic idea of religious believers trying to persuade people that they're right. None. If they think they're right, then that's exactly what they ought to do. That's how the marketplace of ideas works: people share their ideas, they make the case for their ideas, and (in theory, anyway) in the long run the best idea wins. In fact, if these believers were right, and our eternal afterlives in bliss or torment really were contingent on believing the right religion? Then not trying to persuade others to share the faith would be objectionable. Immoral, even. Callous to the point of being monstrous. I disagree passionately with their case, I disagree with how they typically make that case... but I have not even the slightest objection to the idea of them making it.
And I'm not afraid of them. I think the case for atheism is better than the case for religion... by several orders of magnitude. I think that, when stripped of the fear-mongering and social pressure and unsubstantiated opinion and so on, religion falls apart almost laughably fast. I think that religion is a house of cards built inside a fortress, and when the fortress of excuses and diversions and non-arguments gets breached, the actual case for religion is so flimsy it's almost pathetic. I think atheism is correct; I think the case for atheism is winning, and will continue to win... and I'm not afraid of religious believers making their case.
And the fact that so many believers are afraid of atheists making our case?
That just makes my point for me.
Atheists aren't the ones trying to shut up religious believers. When religious ads go up on buses and billboards and TV, we roll our eyes and go about our business. We don't agree with the advertisers... but we don't try to stop them from advertising. Sure, we're trying to get religious messages out of government -- no Ten Commandments in City Halls, no creationism in public schools, no prayers to start city council meetings, etc. -- but that's a separation of church and state issue. (One that works for religious believers just as much as it does for atheists, I might point out.) When it comes to religious groups hawking their message on their own private property -- or on other people's private property they've rented with their own money -- we may think it's obnoxious or silly, but we totally respect their right to do it.
And the fact that so many believers don't respect atheists' right to hawk our message? It just shows how weak their message is -- and how afraid they are of having it contradicted. As my wife Ingrid points out, "If you've got God on your side, why are you so afraid of a billboard?"
If religionists thought their case for God was strong, they wouldn't be trying to silence atheists.
And the fact that they are trying to silence atheists, all by itself, is Exhibit A for exactly why we need to keep advertising.
Read more of Greta Christina at her blog.
This article was found at:
Related Articles:
Losing My Religion [Book Review]
Record number of German Catholics renounce church membership in 2010 over clergy child abuse scandals
Living Without Religion - you don't need God to hope, to care, to love, to live
An agnostic dad considers how to discuss belief in gods with his seven year old daughter
Children have a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to be free from religion
US high school administrators coerce teachers to deny students their legal right to form atheist groups
Atheist Ireland says children's right to be exempt from religious class a theoretical illusion
Irish children subjected to religious dogma in order to get an education in school system dominated by Catholic church
UK atheist says churches are full of families faking religion to get their kids into local state schools
Secularists campaign to change UK law that makes religious assemblies in schools compulsory, government and church resist
Strong Secularism: Religious education can be a form of mental abuse.
The liberal state has a duty to ensure that all children acquire the ability to think for themselves
Who is the Real Anti-Christian: the Atheist or the Fundamentalist Christian?
Author challenges feminists to take on major religions that subjugate and abuse women and children
Pope's attack on atheists reveals fear of secular pluralistic societies that accommodate all believers and non-believers
Child sacrifice and other atrocities ignored by believers who consider the Bible the source of morality
New book on origins of Christianity details the outrageous suffering of children at the hands of ancient religious leaders
President of British Humanist Association: sex and death lie at the poisoned heart of religion
Forced into Faith: How Religion Abuses Children's Rights [book]
Mystic Brutality: Understanding Religion as Child Abuse
When Religion Becomes Child Abuse
What can humanist parents use in the battle against religious indoctrination?
Suicide note of Princeton grad student reveals the tortuous inner life of a child rape victim made worse by religion
Is it ever OK to seriously harm your child in the name of religion? If so, which religion?
U.S. religious conservatives argue parents have right to beat and indoctrinate children, continue to fight children's rights treaty
Philadelphia City Council votes to hold hearings on returning prayer to public schools in violation of constitution
Islamic scholar says Utah schools doing better job teaching students about all religions
Arkansas politician wants public schools to indoctrinate students with literal interpretation of the Bible
As the non-religious grow in number, they become targets of hate and discrimination
ReplyDeleteby DOUG SAUNDERS The Globe and Mail December 11 2012
They may be the fastest-growing faith group in the world. But they also are victims of intense legal, political and sometimes lethal physical discrimination in a majority of countries.
They are the non-religious, a group comprising more than a third of all humans. And the first major worldwide study of their status, released on Monday by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, shows that they are often forced to live in hiding, and are increasingly prone to imprisonment and legal censure.
This is acutely the case in the post-revolution Arab states, where dictators such as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad had appropriated the word “secular” to describe their own regimes, leading to an environment where post-revolution governments, Islamist or otherwise, prosecute the non-religious as both apostates and traitors.
But Christian and Hindu countries as well, the report notes, discriminate against the non-religious, often banning them from marrying believers, adopting children, holding elected office or having custody of children.
And yet people who place their faith in the human rather than the spiritual may be growing faster in number than any other belief community. The non-religious currently make up 36 per cent of the world population, according to a 2012 survey, and their number appear to be growing: A report from Gallup shows that religious belief dropped by 9 per cent worldwide between 2005 and 2012, and self-declared atheism rose by 3 per cent.
That study found that “religion declines in proportion to the rise in education and personal income,” and, since both are on the rise in the developing world, this is “a trend that looks set to continue.”
Indeed, there have been dramatic jumps in non-religion. On Tuesday, Britain released its decennial full-scale census, which revealed that the proportion of people in the U.K. with no religious beliefs rose dramatically, from 15 per cent of the population in 2001 to 25 per cent in 2011.
The worldwide numbers, in fact, may be even larger: because non-believers are subject to punishment, discrimination and even death in many countries (especially those that adhere to Islamic law), it may be that a far larger number of people have abandoned religious faith but are unable or unwilling to admit so in public.
Indeed, the report, titled “Freedom of Thought 2012: A Global Report on Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists and the Nonreligious,” notes that the majority of criminal charges for blasphemy around the world in 2012 involved “social media or other user-generated content platforms like YouTube.” This year has seen more than a dozen blasphemy prosecutions for social-media statements, up from only three over the previous five years.
Canada earns censure in the report for its practice of providing public funding to religious schools, even where such schools discriminate against the non-religious. “Around 16 per cent of the Canadian population claims no religious affiliation,” it notes, “yet in the vast low-population expanses of Canada, the religious school may well be the only public school within a reasonable distance for many non-religious Canadians.”
Ontario is singled out for providing 100 per cent state funding for Roman Catholic separate schools, which, the report notes, “discriminate against non-Catholics in hiring staff” and “can also exclude non-Catholic children.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/as-the-non-religious-grow-in-number-they-become-targets-of-hate-and-discrimination/article6189379/
CFI Contributes to Major New Report on the Global Persecution of Atheists
ReplyDeleteDecember 12, 2012
The Center for Inquiry (CFI), along with allied secular organizations, has partnered with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) for its groundbreaking new report on a growing and troubling global phenomenon that directly affects our constituencies.
Restrictions on freedom of belief and expression around the world are among the defining issues of our time, as governments at all levels crack down on speech or beliefs that they view as dissenting, threatening, or blasphemous. But one aspect of this crisis has reached a boiling point, and done so mostly under the radar of the media: the persecution of the nonreligious.
Timed for Human Rights Day on December 10, IHEU has released Freedom of Thought 2012: A Global Report on Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists and the Non-religious. The report examines the laws and conditions in 60 different countries in which atheists, humanists, and skeptics are persecuted or discriminated against—in 2012 alone. Laws in these countries include restrictions on rights regarding citizenship, marriage, and access to education, as well as the criminalization of religious criticism, and even the mere expression of nonbelief. In many cases, the punishment for this kind of “crime” is death.
CFI was proud to have contributed a significant amount of research to this report, and was joined by the American Humanist Association, the Secular Coalition for America, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. The media has taken notice of this crucial human rights issue, with coverage of the report from such outlets as Reuters, Slate, NBCNews.com, and many others.
These restrictions on speech and belief around the world have long been a prime focus of CFI, and our participation in this report is part of our larger campaign to shine a light on this issue, the Campaign for Free Expression. At the campaign website, you can learn more about those who have been the victims of so-called blasphemy laws and prohibitions on “defamation of religion,” as well as how you can take action to help affect change.
A PDF of the IHEU report can be downloaded here:
http://www.iheu.org/files/IHEU%20Freedom%20of%20Thought%202012_1.pdf
* * *
The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization headquartered in Amherst, New York, with executive offices in Washington, D.C. It is also home to both the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. The mission of CFI is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. CFI‘s web address is www.centerforinquiry.net.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/cfi_contributes_to_major_new_report_on_the_global_persecution_of_atheists/
Singapore Court Wants Teenage Blogger Held for Psychiatric Review
ReplyDeleteBy AUSTIN RAMZY, NEW YORK TIMES JUNE 23, 2015
TAIPEI, Taiwan — A Singapore court ruled on Tuesday that a teenage blogger who was convicted of obscenity and insulting religious feelings after he posted a video criticizing the late leader Lee Kuan Yew this year should be held for two weeks pending a psychiatric examination.
The teenager, Amos Yee, drew international attention when he was arrested for posting the video shortly after Mr. Lee, the founding father of modern Singapore, died on March 23.
The case has highlighted Singapore’s strict limits on speech and has drawn criticism from human rights groups, which said the treatment of the 16-year-old, including more than a month in detention and the possibility of at least 18 months in reformative training, was unduly harsh.
In Singapore, offenders under 21 can be sentenced to reformative training, in which they are housed separately from adult inmates and given “a structured environment of discipline,” according to the Singapore prosecutor’s office.
It is not prison, but it is “akin to detention and usually applied to juvenile offenders involved in serious crimes,” according to the office of the United Nations’ human rights agency.
A lawyer for Mr. Yee could not be immediately reached for comment on Tuesday.
Mr. Yee was held for more than two weeks before his May 12 conviction. He was taken into custody again on June 2 after a judge ordered an examination into whether he should be sentenced to reformative training.
Prosecutors have said they did not want to pursue a prison sentence. But they asked Judge Jasvender Kaur to consider reformative training for Mr. Yee after the teenager rejected probation and reposted the material he was convicted over, including an eight-minute video and an image of Mr. Lee engaged in a sex act with Margaret Thatcher, the former prime minister of Britain.
A reformative training sentence would last at least 18 months.
On Tuesday, Judge Kaur ordered that the teenager be held at the Institute of Mental Health in Singapore for two weeks while doctors examine his psychological health and assess whether he should receive mandatory treatment. A report from a doctor this month suggested he could have an autism spectrum disorder.
Human Rights Watch has called on Singapore to exonerate and free Mr. Yee.
Likewise, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Southeast Asia said on Tuesday that it was concerned about Mr. Yee’s physical and mental health in detention. It called for his immediate release, saying that “the criminal sanctions considered in this case seem disproportionate and inappropriate in terms of the international protections for freedom of expression and opinion.”
see the links in this article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/world/asia/singapore-court-wants-teenage-blogger-amos-yee-held-for-psychiatric-review.html