Athée Canadien
The CFI and the Republican Party: Strange Bedfellows?
By Brent
The planned development of the Cordoba House Islamic community center (or the “ground zero mosque”, as it has been dubbed) has stirred up an exceptional amount of media attention, and ignited many raucous debates about the limits of tolerance and religious freedom of expression. The simple breakdown is this: Liberals (i.e. Democrats) generally support the building of the mosque, and conservatives (i.e. Republicans) generally oppose.
As always, politics makes for strange bedfellows. In a recent press release by the Center for Inquiry, it is elaborated that:
[I]t would be inappropriate to build any new house of worship in the area immediately around Ground Zero, not just mosques
Considering the CFI, is a progressive, secular, skeptical organization, and that the Republican Party is, well, the Republican Party, I find it rather curious that they are in agreement regarding their opposition to the building of the cultural center.
The reasons the two use to justify opposition to the building of the mosque are different, but at the same time similar. Both feel that the building of the mosque is “inappropriate”, but CFI is more inclusive in its opposition, explaining that any new house of worship (of any denomination) is inappropriate.
A careful distinction must be understood: The Republicans would probably be fine with building a church there instead, whereas CFI would oppose the building of that too, because, according to Ronald Lindsay, CEO and President of CFI:
The 9/11 attacks were an example of faith-based terrorism, and any institution that privileges faith above reason is an affront to those who were killed and injured in those attacks
This is a statement that must be deciphered very carefully. It’s not difficult to accept the link between faith and terrorism with regards to 9/11. However, the next part of that sentence is very strange indeed. He doesn’t specify what he means by an institution that places faith above reason. Do all religious institutions place faith above reason? What about the ones that value both faith and reason?
And why is any institution that privileges faith above reason an affront to those who were killed and injured in those attacks, anyway? Sure, the attacks had strong associations with faith, but it does not follow that all faith is bad. What about a faith-privileging institutions that encourage positive outcomes, such as charity, compassion, and hope? What about religious institutions that value both faith and reason?
Later, the press release piqued my interest with another interesting statement:
the deeper threat confronting humanity is not confined to Islam. To the contrary, it is presented by all religions.
Really? All of them? The Bahai’s? The Unitarian Universalists? The United Church of Canada? All of them get put into the “THREAT TO HUMANITY” category? None of the adherents of any religions anywhere have done anything good for humanity, ever?
That seems rather unreasonable to me.
The release then goes on to explain all the harm caused by religion. No argument there. But what about the good things religious people do? What about charitable works? What about compassion and empathy for your fellow human being? The religious texts of the largest religions can be used to justify both positive and negative outcomes.
The point I’m trying to elaborate is that we shouldn’t generalize religions or the religious. Being in opposition to all religion is simply ridiculous. What would make sense, instead, is challenging the forms of religion that produce negative outcomes. We should challenge religion that inspires bigotry, hatred, and violence. I don’t see why we shouldn’t find a common ally with the forms of religion that strive to foster peace, progress, and a better world for everyone.
Simply being religious does not make you a “threat to humanity”, contrary to what the CFI seems to want you to believe.
In fact, I might be encouraged to think that the CFI, with its unreasonable generalizations, is more of a “threat to humanity” than a proposed cultural center, the purpose of which, as explained by those who propose constructing it, is “to build trust and understanding between the Muslim World and the United States.”
| Print article | This entry was posted by Brent on August 27, 2010 at 8:05 pm, and is filed under General. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 1 year ago
“What about the ones that value both faith and reason?”
Yeah, and what about groups who advocate both freedom AND slavery? Or those who stand up for free speech AND for blasphemy laws? Who will speak for those marriage counselors who beat their wives?
Faith by definition stands opposed to reason. The foundation of religion – belief without evidence – is what is dangerous to humanity. At no point has CFI said that every single religious person is a threat; that’s a foolish straw man argument. At no point in this post do you say anything positive about faith on its own, only the actions of those who claim to be operating from a faith basis. It is possible to do all of those things (charity, compassion, hope) without any religious belief whatsoever.
“I don’t see why we shouldn’t find a common ally with the forms of religion that strive to foster peace, progress, and a better world for everyone.”
I don’t see why this comment is relevant. Nobody in this article (or, to my knowledge, at CFI) has said that there can be no collaboration with religious group – the distinction is that CFI doesn’t acknowledge the virtue of the reasons behind religious action, merely the actions themselves.
about 1 year ago
“Yeah, and what about groups who advocate both freedom AND slavery? Or those who stand up for free speech AND for blasphemy laws? Who will speak for those marriage counselors who beat their wives?”
What about those things? I’m not talking about those things. I’m talking about faith, which isn’t always a bad thing, and is certainly none of the things you mention.
“Faith by definition stands opposed to reason. The foundation of religion – belief without evidence – is what is dangerous to humanity.”
I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that faith stands opposed to reason. But I think we need to clarify if we are talking about the act of faith itself, i.e. making the leap of faith, which is perfectly reasonable given that we can never disprove all god concepts fully, versus practicing religion which may be harmful or not.
“At no point has CFI said that every single religious person is a threat; that’s a foolish straw man argument.”
I don’t see how you could accuse all religions of being dangerous without thereby accusing the adherents of said religions of also being dangerous. Atheism is dangerous but certainly atheists aren’t dangerous. Communism is dangerous but communists aren’t dangerous. That just sounds very strange to me.
“At no point in this post do you say anything positive about faith on its own, only the actions of those who claim to be operating from a faith basis.”
I specified: “The religious texts of the largest religions can be used to justify both positive and negative outcomes.”
“It is possible to do all of those things (charity, compassion, hope) without any religious belief whatsoever.”
Sure, but if it can be done with or without faith, I don’t see why it follows that all religion is dangerous. If someone chooses to be a good person and a believer, I’m not sure why we should consider their beliefs dangerous.
“I don’t see why this comment is relevant. Nobody in this article (or, to my knowledge, at CFI) has said that there can be no collaboration with religious group – the distinction is that CFI doesn’t acknowledge the virtue of the reasons behind religious action, merely the actions themselves.”
Have you not read their press release? Religion is the enemy. All of it. They didn’t mince words. The rhetoric is divisive and unnecessary, and their reasoning is flawed. According to the release, the religious are, at best, exponents to threatening all of humanity. I don’t see how a religious person could be welcomed into an organization that views their beliefs as a “threat to humanity”.
about 1 year ago
The fact that you can’t understand that ideas can be dangerous without demonizing the people who hold those ideas is both depressing and frightening to me.
Also head-scratching to me is that you called making a leap of faith in absence of evidence “reasonable”. It is not reasonable at all to say “I don’t know, therefore I will make it up.” Reasonable is to stop that sentence at the comma.
If good things can be done with or without faith, but bad things require faith, then promoting faith will selectively encourage bad things. Build something that encourages people to do good things, not something that encourages no net benefit whatsoever and validates the spirit that was behind the attacks that took down the WTC.
RELIGION is the enemy, not the religious. The press release is clear on that. If you can’t wrap your head around that, take a crash course in psychology.
about 1 year ago
“The fact that you can’t understand that ideas can be dangerous without demonizing the people who hold those ideas is both depressing and frightening to me.”
Well, that would be depressing and frightening, if that indeed what was going on. No, of course you can call the beliefs that people hold near and dear a “threat to humanity” without implying that there is something wrong with them, or that they are dangerous. For example, you could say that Capitalism is a pestilence but the capitalists are fine, or Nazism is a threat to humanity but the Nazis are fine chaps. Makes sense to me.
“Also head-scratching to me is that you called making a leap of faith in absence of evidence “reasonable”. It is not reasonable at all to say “I don’t know, therefore I will make it up.” Reasonable is to stop that sentence at the comma.”
Faith is inspired through revelation, oftentimes. If a person feels that god has revealed themselves to them, then the reasonable thing to do might be to indeed believe in god. Sure we could try to explain away the ‘revelation’, but nevertheless, we can’t disprove that it wasn’t god indeed that did reveal itself to that person. You just have to make the leap of faith, or don’t. I’m not implying that you cant gauge the certainty via empiricism and reason, but I’m also not saying that we have enough evidence to say for certain that god does not exist. If considered enough, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe in god.
“If good things can be done with or without faith, but bad things require faith, then promoting faith will selectively encourage bad things.”
Both good and bad things can be with our without faith. Same goes for atheism, or any ideology/belief system, for that matter.
“Build something that encourages people to do good things, not something that encourages no net benefit whatsoever and validates the spirit that was behind the attacks that took down the WTC”
Do you have access to the net benefit equation of the universe? I know a lot of great religious people, many of which are far better people than me. They do good things, much more than what the atheist community gives them credit for. Also, you could equally say that by building the community center, it validates the spirit of bringing people together and building tolerance. It also builds the spirit of being clear who did 9/11: a small group of radical Muslims, not Islam itself.
“RELIGION is the enemy, not the religious. The press release is clear on that. If you can’t wrap your head around that, take a crash course in psychology.”
I have studied psychology thank you very much. I acknowledge that they did specify “religion” as opposed to “the religious”, but it’s a moot point, because “religion” is entirely composed of “the religious”. As I said, according to the CFI, the religious are, at the very least, calling the religious exponents to a threat to humanity.
about 1 year ago
For someone who tells people to take crash courses in psychology, you sure seem to ignore bounded rationality.
about 1 year ago
This one’s really head scratching and disappointing. I’m very disappointed in CFI trans for putting out something so stupid. They really should know better.
about 1 year ago
As an atheist who would probably vote Republican if he were American, I’m wondering why Brent chose to compare CFI and the Republican Party as an insult.
about 1 year ago
Zak: Perhaps “Tea Party” or “religious right” might be clearer terms to use.
about 1 year ago
I didn’t insinuate that it was an insult; merely that they were strange bedfellows.
about 1 year ago
I’d say your generalizations about Republicans are in direct conflict with your criticisms of making generalizations about people of faith.
about 1 year ago
Evidently you didn’t notice that I didn’t make generalizations about republicans. The only time I came close to making one was when I stated that “conservatives (i.e. Republicans) generally oppose [the building of the mosque]“, but even then, I qualified that with “generally Republicans oppose” not “all Republicans oppose”, or just “Republicans oppose.” Doubtlessly, there are exceptions, and I accounted for that by not generalizing them as a homogeneous group, as the CFI did with all religions.
about 1 year ago
Actually you did when you compared it to CFI. I know more than a few skeptics and secularists who are fiscal conservatives. There is plenty of room for Republicans in CFI. This whole article is heavily biased. Republican does not mean crazy christian right.
about 1 year ago
I made a comparison and pointed out the differences via the links I provided. If any generalizations were made it was the evidence speaking for itself; CFI and the GOP have many contradictory policies. I didn’t specify that there wasn’t room for Republicans in CFI. I also didn’t specify that Republican equals crazy christian right.
about 1 year ago
CFI doesn’t agree with the Dems all the time either. CFI supports gay marriage, Obama doesn’t.
I think your evidence is selective.
about 1 year ago
Um, on gay marriage, CFI agrees with and would be considered part of the liberal base. That Obama is more centrist on the issue is irrelevant.
about 1 year ago
Maybe irrelevant to you, I know a few gay people who might disagree.
about 1 year ago
So those gay people think CFI is not being liberal when it articulates a position left of Obama’s? What?
about 1 year ago
No, Obama is the leader of the Democratic party. Regardless of how liberal Democrats pretend to be, the reality is, they are currently not supporting gay marriage. That is at odds with CFIs position. You can’t have it both ways.
about 1 year ago
And that makes CFI an ideologically neutral organization.
Riiight.
about 1 year ago
It’s strange – a few days ago I checked what CFI had to say about the
mosquecommunity center, and it had a supportive statement by Lindsay.about 1 year ago
I’m glad to see I wasn’t the only one surprised and disappointed by CFI’s press release. A wrong position to take, for sure.
about 1 year ago
Or any other kind of compartmentalization, for that matter.
about 1 year ago
“What would make sense, instead, is challenging the forms of religion that produce negative outcomes. We should challenge religion that inspires bigotry, hatred, and violence. ”
Unfortunately, it isn’t religion that does this, it’s people. People can find justification for their violence, bigotry, and hatred anywhere they like, even in the most “peaceful” religions. There is no religion based solely on violence, *especially* Islam, so you can’t just say “oh, that’s a bad religion, lets attack it”.
about 1 year ago
In ancient Norse mythology, you had to die heroically in battle in order to make it to the place of heroes called Asgard…. where you would become part of the Army of the gods that at the end of the world would fight against the coming onslaught of giants and monsters. :)
about 1 year ago
Sorry I wasn’t able to follow this discussion. CFI US has very much changed their position on this issue. CFI Canada – and me personally – never supported the original position, and remember we are a distinct entity, although of course there’s lots of inevitable confusion on these sorts of matters. I wrote to Ron almost immediately voicing my discontent, parts of that email having been quoted by Zak in his blog post on this topic. I was glad to see our US counterparts modify their position in light of more reflection, which I think is a healthy indication of their ability to self-correct.
about 1 year ago
I’m glad to see that CFI US changed its position. Thank you very much for the info, Justin!