The “interfaith” trap – particularly for atheists

The video above shows some of the hassling of Maryam Namazie by members of the Goldsmiths Islamic Society when she gave a talk to the London’s Goldsmiths College on the topic “Apostasy, blasphemy and free expression in the age of ISIS.” The talk was sponsored by the Goldsmiths Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society but was opposed by the Goldsmiths Islamic Society and the Goldsmiths Feminist Society who attempted to get her invitation withdrawn. Warwick University Students Union and Trinity College Dublin had also originally withdrawn invitations to Maryam Namazie, citing fears of incitement to hatred of Muslims.

The video is long and the sound quality is not good. However I persisted and found interesting the fact that female Muslims in the audience were not able to ask their questions until  near the end – after the male disruptors had left!

Now University of Sheffield

The other day I saw a similar example of this attempted censorship at the University of Sheffield. But this time, the Sheffield Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (SASH) itself was the censor – they “turned down a suggestion by a student to invite Maryam Namazie to speak at the university. The reason? Her ‘hard anti-Islamist approach’ is not ‘conducive’ to the direction that the society wishes to go in” (see Atheist students are losing their faith in free speech).

So this is yet another example of the way group thinking and irrational arguments are being used to prevent open discussion of important issues like human and women’s right? (I discussed this in my articles Richard Dawkins and the Skeptics Conference controversy and Misrepresentation, misogyny and misandry – these should concern sceptics). But it is also an example of how “interfaith” activity, and indeed finding common cause with groups holding different beliefs, can result in the suppression of such vital discussion.

The author of the article is Hallam Roffey who is a writer and a student at the University of Sheffield. He writes:

“This isn’t a wind-up. Not only is the suggestion that you can be ‘too hard’ on Islamism baffling, but the fact that this statement came from an atheist, secularist and humanist society is almost beyond parody. To clarify, this is a society which aims to defend human rights and promote secularism declining to invite a renowned and influential ex-Muslim, secularist and human-rights campaigner. (Namazie has done extensive work supporting refugees, and has tackled both religious fundamentalism and far-right bigotry.)

“In its response to the inquiring student, SASH said that it would like to concentrate on ‘interfaith’ activities instead, stating that ‘interfaith between faith societies is vital’. Apparently, inviting Namazie, which may not be welcomed by some members of Sheffield’s Islamic Society (ISoc), would be antithetical to their objectives.”

So, in effect, this student society has thrown away some of its basic aims simply to further its “interfaith” activities.

Photo credit: AP/Valentina Petrova

I find that incredible. While I accept that cooperation between groups of different beliefs is important and laudable what is this worth if it involves giving up such important principles. Would the Christian societies at Sheffield give up their bible studies and prayer meetings in order to further “interfaith ” cooperation with the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society? Would the Islamic Society give up their involvement in Ramadan activities for such vague “interfaith” reasons?

I think not.

I think that this example shows how the involvement of atheists and humanists or “interfaith” organisational activities can be a trap. After all, many of these sorts of activities already assume ideas and customs which exclude atheists (eg religious observations and collective ‘interfaith” prayers). Atheists should limit cooperation to issues where there is common ground – and they should not limit their own activity on issues like human rights because one or other of the theist groups do not support them.

Or is this just   a fashionable “political correctness?”

Mind you, I wonder if this “interfaith” issue is just a handy excuse for those who rejected the request that Maryam speak. I wonder if the bogeys of “anti-feminism” and Islamophobia” are not the real reasons, at least for some, in the way these arguments have been used in attempts to suppress the voices of others – like Richard Dawkins.

Hallam Roffey says:

“SASH was particularly concerned that there would be a repeat of ‘what happened at Goldsmiths’, when Islamist students disrupted a talk being given by Namazie. But this only projects a pretty dim view of Sheffield ISoc. As a Sheffield student myself, I’d like to think that ISoc members would be up for the debate, and would not act at all like those thugs at Goldsmiths. Not all Muslims resent apostates.

“What’s more, the subtext here is that Namazie was in some way to blame for the Goldsmiths incident. Though SASH insists it does not condone Goldsmiths ISoc’s actions, it is nevertheless siding with Islamists at Namazie’s expense. This is cowardly and pathetic.”

I agree – this sort of suppression of discussion on topic human rights issues is cowardly and pathetic.

Similar articles

Misrepresentation, misogyny and misandry – these should concern sceptics

Steve Novella – prominent member of the Skeptics Gude to the Universe and NECSS

I apologize to those sensitive souls whose toes I am treading on – but I must return to the debate sparked off by the invitation/disinvitation/reinvitation fiasco involving Richard Dawkins and the US Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism (NECSS) (see Richard Dawkins and the Skeptics Conference controversy).

I must comment on the way this issue was discussed in the last episode of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe (SGU).  Listen to the section Free Speech vs Social Justice – A discussion with Julia Galef about the recent controversies in the skeptical movement for the full discussion. In my view, this discussion was misleading because it started with a red herring (“free speech vs social justice”) and only got to the real meat of the issue (irrationality in the “skeptic movement”) at the end of the discussion. And even then that important issue was not handled objectively.

This specific discussion was important because:

1: Steven Novella is prominent in both the SGU and the executive committee of NECSS. In fact, he made a statement as a member of the executive committee of NECSS attempting to explain their decision (at that stage before the reinvitation was issued). This was widely criticised – but, to be fair, it suffered from the bureaucratic restrictions of executive membership.  I had hoped he could speak more freely about the problems of that organisation in an open discussion.

2: Steven expressed deep concern at the way these ideologically-driven debates are destroying the “skeptical movement.” In particular, he passed on the fact that several high-profile scientists with public influence had told him they no longer wished to be associated with the “movement” because of the irrationality of the debate.

The problem is Steven’s concerns about the ideological nature of these debates and the destructive role they are playing for sceptics organisations only came up at the end of the discussion. They should have been confronted at the beginning. That is why I call the long time discussing social justice vs freedom of expression a red herring. That discussion was never specific and it is misleading to think it was relevant to the specific issue of the NECSS/Dawkins invitation fiasco. Concentration on this misrepresented the real issue and misrepresented Richard Dawkin’s position.

Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation of Richard Dawkins and his statements is, of course, nothing new. After all, he is an evolutionary biologist and we all know how much evolutionary science is misrepresented by its opponents – and even the ordinary person in the street. On top of that, he is an outspoken, and largely uncompromising, atheist. Then his literary skills, and his publishers, add another layer where a catchy book title or public statement gets easily misinterpreted.

In an old blog post, Putting Dawkins in his place, I relate how back in the 1970s I fell into the trap of misinterpreting the title of Richard’s first book – The Selfish Gene. I said then:

” I had never read it, of course, but there were all those magazine articles using the book to justify selfishness in people and to provide an ethical basis for a selfish society, for capitalism. These ideas, to me, were reactionary, anti-human. My mind was made up. Despite my interest in science, I was not going to waste time reading a “reactionary” book which I knew I wouldn’t agree with.”

It wasn’t until I read The God Delusion in 1976 that I realised my mistake:

 “Mind you, because of my anti-Dawkins prejudice I almost didn’t, thinking it would be a waste of time. I am grateful I made the effort because I then found out my prejudice was baseless. The Selfish Gene was about genes, not about individual humans, other animals or society. Writers and others had taken the title of the book to justify their own political and economic agendas!”

As Dawkins has said – he could have titled the book The Cooperative Gene without changing a word of the text.

If the current fashion of de-platforming academic speakers was in fashion during the 1970s I wonder if there would have been moves to disinvite Dawkins from speaking at conferences? I wonder if I, in my ignorance, would have supported such moves?

In Richard Dawkins and the Skeptics Conference controversy, I explained how Richard’s critics were misrepresenting his position. He was not opposing social justice regarding feminism or Islamism – simply noting the destructive role of a small minority of extreme radical feminists and Islamists. He was, in fact, advocating for social justice. The social media attacks on Dawkins over this issue were misleading and the uncritical acceptance of these misleading attacks by some “sceptics” just illustrates that simple use of a name like “sceptic” is no guarantee of a sceptical or critical approach.

Perhaps sceptics should aspire to be more sceptical, critical and thoughtful in assessing claims. And I mean all claims. I have met sceptics who are justifiably proud of their sceptical approach to religion or alternative health – but who are very unsceptical and uncritical (maybe I should say biassed) about prevailing political claims. I hope this is not due to the hubris of thinking their sceptical approach in one area justifies their bias in another.

On the other hand, perhaps we should recognise that sceptics are just as human as the rest of us – just as prone to group thinking and being mislead. OK, this recognises that use of the name “sceptic” does not confer any magical properties – but it still does not remove the responsibility of at least making an effort.

Misogyny and misandry of sceptics

Some specifics were discussed towards the end of the SGU discussion – not related to Dawkins or his statements, but to the old elevatorgate “chat up” story, Rebecca Watson who “broke” that story and the harsh reaction she got in the “atheist/sceptical movement.” Participants lamented what they saw as misogyny among people who were meant to be rational, and underlined that the misogynistic attacks on Rebecca were more extreme and widespread than many people realised. Finally, there was recognition that some feminists in the “movement” were “going too far” and responding with attacks and charges which were just as extreme. Perhaps, without actually using the word, they were acknowledging that the “movement” had a problem with misandry (the hatred of men) as well as misogyny (the hatred of women).

Image credit: Rebloggy – vintage comics

This acknowledgement, and concern, should have been dealt with – upfront – at the beginning of the discussion instead of burying it at the end. And I don’t buy the concern being expressed over such irrational attitudes simmering away in a movement that is meant to be rational. As I keep saying, the mere use of names like “sceptic,” “atheist” or “rationalist” does not magically confer these properties on a person or movement. They do not somehow make a person or movement immune to all the attitudes, biases and instincts common in a community.

“The battle of the sexes” seems inherent in human societies – and there are probably good reasons for this. Usually, differences are handled in a friendly enough way but this battle can sometimes become extreme in sections of the community – fuelled by social inequalities and violations of human rights (often real but sometimes imaginary). Our life experiences also leave us with personal issues which can fuel resentments and irrational attitudes towards others – on both sides of the “sexual divide.” Nor are such attitudes and resentments restricted to gender issues – let’s not forget ethnic, social and economic differences.

Sceptics should take responsibility

“Sceptics” are part of the community and are not immune to all those irrational attitudes, group thinking and resentments that flourish in the community. They shouldn’t be surprised to discover people in their “movement” might actually give vent to their feelings on these issues. However, those “sceptics” who consider themselves leaders, and the organisations representing sceptics’ should, at least, make the effort to resist the group thinking involved.

That is where I disagree with Steven Novella and the executive of the NECSS. Steven in his statement expressed the:

“wish Dawkins would recognize (perhaps he does) his special place within our community and the power that position holds. When he retweets a link to a video, even with a caveat, that has a tremendous impact. It lends legitimacy to the video and the ideas expressed in it.”

Perhaps Steven should reflect on how this concept of responsibility may relate to his own actions. He and the NECSS should have resisted the misinformation and group thinking that prevented them from carefully reading Richard’s tweets – or even consulting with Richard before withdrawing their invitation (an action they now recognise as “unprofessional” but some might call just plain rude). And as leaders of the “sceptic movement,” they should have the responsibility to avoid succumbing to the irrationalities promoted in social media on the issue. To recognise and avoid the misandry driving these – as well as the misogyny.

Similar articles