How is it that religious people can get offended, demand censorship, go on a rampage and destroy property with impunity and yet peace loving citizens are harassed when they want to take out a rally against superstition? A few days ago an atheist’s organization wanted to take out a rally in Chennai to spread awareness of the dangers of blind belief. By all accounts, the rally would be peaceful and the participants wouldn’t make a nuisance of themselves. Because…come on. Have you ever heard of a mass group of atheists going on a rampage anywhere in the world?
And yet, the police denied them permission to peacefully assemble and make their point, giving the excuse that the road was too narrow. When that argument was shot down in court by showing that rallies had been organized there before and that the road could have not have suddenly become narrow, the true reason was revealed. The advocate general Somayaji told the court that it hurt the religious sentiments of people and infringed on the religious rights of worshipers!
What religious rights?
I must not have paid attention in civics class because I don’t recall any right stating that people must never be exposed to anything that offends them. If religious people don’t like what atheists have to say then by all means ignore the rally! A peaceful festival doesn’t violate anyone’s religious rights. To put this nonsense in perspective, both Christianity and Islam claim that theirs is the one true god. By definition therefore, a Christian rally must hurt the “sentiments” of Muslims and vice versa. So instead of offending everyone minus one group, an atheist’s festival offends everyone equally!
Fortunately we have courts in this country that understand the concept of fundamental rights and liberties better than the politicians or the police. After a very brief deliberation, the court gave permission to the atheists festival to go ahead provided they didn’t create a law and order situation. Did that even need to be said? Isn’t it obvious?
A peaceful festival doesn’t violate anyone’s religious rights.
To my knowledge, “religious rights” in India refer to the freedom to practice one’s religion in any peaceful way. I fail to understand how an atheist rally is going to infringe on those rights. Is anyone preventing Muslims from going to their mosque? Or Christians from going to church? Are their festivals being taken away? Are their holy books being banned? Are they being persecuted for their faith? No, no, no, no, and no! What I don’t understand is how something can be so clear to me and all right thinking people and yet appear so controversial to the police? The only reason I can think of is that the police fear that religious people will go on some kind of rampage destroying property and injuring people in “retaliation”. Even then, isn’t the duty of the police clear? They must provide protection and arrest those who create a nuisance. But of course, thugs and criminals in India are coddled. Peace loving citizens are the only ones who are persecuted. Free speech and expression are threatened because of the powerful heckler’s veto. And the police blindly stand by. Hopefully the court’s decision will set a precedent. Religious people have no right to be “not offended”. They have the freedom to ignore whatever they don’t like. But they can’t stop others from exercising their freedom of expression.
The police did not give permission for a peaceful rally at Marina beach protesting against the creation of dog pounds in Chennai because it was originally the idea of the mayor :(
In reply to tp
There are too many excuses for the police to not give permission. Such arbitrary powers need to be brought in line.
“Have you ever heard of a mass group of atheists going on a rampage anywhere in the world?”
I would laugh if this weren’t so sad. What about Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the North Korean dictators and all? I think atheist churches like Communism have racked up a pretty decent body count…
Of course, I can foresee you making the excuse that the massacres weren’t carried out because of atheism per se. But everyone says that; Muslim clerics tell us everyday after every jihadi bombing that “Islam is a religion of peace”. The bottomline is that whenever the masses have embraced atheism wholesale, they have simply replaced ancient gods with dictators as living gods. And that is a truth you cannot deny.
In reply to Abhishek
First, see this comic by the Oatmeal: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/atheism
Next you’ll say that because Hitler had a mustache, all mustached men are mass murderers. No seriously you need to see what you just wrote. Just because someone possesses a trait doesn’t mean that all their actions are caused because of it.
Also, consider that while something like communism doesn’t have a “god” per se, they’re much more like “state religions” possessing most of the characteristics of old school religions like blind belief, and complete obedience to authority.
Atheism is pretty much the opposite of both. It’s an absurd proposition to say that the North Korean dictators did what they did in the name of atheism. In fact, the North Korean religion is very much like a regular religion with the dictator being god.
So no…the body count of atheism per se is pretty much nil. Because atheism is about non belief in any higher power. Whether it’s dictators, a state philosophy, or whatever.
In reply to bhagwad
Well said!
Jews, Muslims and Christians worship the same God. The God of Abraham. The God of Israe. The God of Christ. The God of Muhammad.
Islam also does not mean peace. The word in Arabic for peace is Salaam. Islam is not the same word as Islam.
Just wanted to clarify that for ya ;)
How can my God be superior to the “christian” God if both are one in the same?
People don’t kill because of religion. They kill because they are people.
Human beings are systematically one of the most efficient species to destroy a member of their own species (one of the most note I said that). Rather than retaining fitness like other animal/plant or whatever species, we seek to kill our own. It has nothing to do with religion. Its our nature.
You are correct, in a SECULAR country, the atheists can do whatever they want. They have that right. At the same time, Abishek is correct. If you DON’T want to be like your religious counterparts, then why make a group out of yourself?
In reply to Western Point of View
Most of what you said has nothing to do with the substance of my article :)
And forming groups is not the most salient feature of a religion. Belief in a higher power is.
In reply to bhagwad
agreed. Its about a higher power, I never argued that. People can form groups. Heck, you can form a dungeon’s and dragon’s group. Religion is different (and so is Deen, but that is because I’m a Muslim).
You are correct, however, atheists in a SECULAR nation have every right to protest whatever the heck they want.
I just don’t appreciate the sentiments that 0% of ALL rioters are atheists and 100% of ALL rioters follow a religion. Its the arrogance of non-religious people that get to me, as they place themselves on a very elite position, making themselves look more smug than anything, no offense.
But in any case, yea let ’em protest, who cares? I don’t get how they infringe on my rights. As long as I can go to the grocery store with ease, then yea, let them protest.
But again, like I said, you are incorrect when you say Christians and Muslims have “different” gods. They are one in the same.
//Religious people have no right to be “not offended”. They have the freedom to ignore whatever they don’t like. But they can’t stop others from exercising their freedom of expression.//
I agree. Love this post. Just finished reading Gora by Rabindranath Tagore, let me share a quote I saved, about relationship of the fanatics with the Truth:
Thinking that the truth is weak, they consider it part of their duty to protect it, through either force or strategy. “I don’t depend on truth, the truth depends on me”: those who believe this become fanatics. Those who believe in the power of truth keep their own aggressiveness under control. If outsiders temporarily misunderstand us, there’s not much harm done; far worse is the harm resulting from inability to acknowledge the truth because of petty hesitations. I always pray to the Almighty that, be it a Brahmo prayer hall or a Hindu chandimandap, let me in every situation be able to salute the truth easily, with bowed head, and without resistance. Let no external hindrance restrain me.’
In reply to Indian Homemaker
That’s a very well written quote. I’ve been coming across a few pieces by Tagore myself and it’s amazing how well he writes.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
As a Muslim, I agree with that to a certain degree. Instead of “the truth depends on me” it is “the truth is there whether you like it or not.”
If the truth depends on yourself, one can argue that the sky is green.
Fanaticism happens everywhere though. NOt just religion. Again, LA 1992 had nothing to do with religion. in the last 250 years, only 7% of the wars were in the name of religion.
So atheists should protest as much as they want, but atheists should also recognize they aren’t God’s gift to the world. Pun intended ;)
In reply to Western Point of View
@ Western Point of View, I’m curious…how and where do atheists claim to be God’s gift to the world? For Heaven’s sake, everyday we are inundated with TV programs and channels dedicated to religion…we are forced to hear religious prayers over megaphones from temples, mosques and churches almost every single day…traffic gets clogged by religious processions on a clockwork basis…not to mention the usual oppression and carnage that goes on in the name of religion…and you blame atheists for thinking they are god’s gift to the world?
A good thumb rule for determining the validity of your argument is to see whether Fox News agrees or disagrees with you. Maybe the below video will clear your doubts. As usual, The Daily Show says it best :)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-3-2012/the-war-on-christmas–friendly-fire-edition
TV programs? Turn them off. Nobody is forcing you to watch them.
Traffic? Hey, people have to drive, right? There is morning rush hour going to work, does this somehow infringe upon my right to work? Traffic has nothing to do with anyone’s rights. Traffic occurs because of lack of roads or infrastructure to support a large amount of commuters. Religion has NOTHING to do with infrastructure. Totally weak argument.
You hear church/mosque prayers? The local municipal codes allow for such prayers to be out loud etc. If you have a problem with it, write to your local representative.
Carnage? What about the communist revolution in Russia? Mao had NOTHING to do with religion, yet his reign killed more people than Stalin and Hitler
Nazism had nothing to do with religion–it was in the name of German/Aryan nationalism.
What about the Nigerian riots? That was about Nigerian nationalism.
What about LA in 1992?
in fact, the only big riots that had to do with religion were both in India. the US’s biggest riot had nothing to do with religion. The riots in England in 2011 had nothing to do with religion.
The fact that atheists don’t acknowledge that in the last 2-300 years only 7% of wars were in the name of religion is case and point that they thoroughly believe that they are God’s gift to the world.
World War 1? World War 2? Yea, nothing to do with religion.
I should note that no war was carried out in the name of atheism either, so I’m not an idiot.
I take MAJOR issue with Bhagwad saying “an atheist would NEVER do this.” Says who? Was he IN LA in 1992? I’m not trying to blast or mud sling, but there is no proof that Atheists don’t riot. Heck, when the Lakers won the championship, i’m sure plenty of Atheists were throwing trash cans at buses.
In reply to Western Point of View
I think it’s reasonably obvious that when I say “You will never see an atheist do this” it’s implied that they wouldn’t do this in the name of atheism.
I keep seeing this argument come up, but I really shouldn’t have to clarify it.
In reply to bhagwad
It wasn’t all that clear to me.
Seeing and atheist doing something and seeing an atheist doing something in the name of atheism are two entirely different things.
You can see a Hispanic man kill someone or you can see a Hispanic man kill for someone in the name of nationalism. Entirely different concepts.
The unassuming reader could EASILY see that particular caption as you implying that “Atheists don’t riot.” Not in the name of atheism, but IN GENERAL atheists don’t riot, which can’t be proven.
In reply to Western Point of View
Well, the only way out of this is to take a poll and see what people think when they mean “atheists will not do this”.
My opinion is that it’s understood that it means “They will not do this in the name of atheism“.
in any case, atheists have every right to protest as Muslims do, but like you said it, if atheism is like math or science (which it isn’t really, since human knowledge itself is finite and we are limited by the very knowledge we praise), then why protests math and science?
In reply to Western Point of View
Atheists don’t “protest atheism”. They advocate it. Like many scientists advocate math and science. This translates into protesting against superstition. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
In reply to bhagwad
Just as Muslims advoce Islam and protest logically having a law dedicated towards enlightening the society towards worship. That also seems perfectly reasonable to me. They also are protesting against the superstition that isn’t Islam, right? Quran/Hadith in themselves are proof that God exists just as the law of gravity or using differential equations in engineering is completely in use in scientific circles.
Remember, science and math is FINITE and therefore there are things that are yet to be proven. Just because 1000 years ago the proof for microbial organisms was severely lacking, did that mean they didn’t exist?
In reply to Western Point of View
Who is objecting to Muslims having rallies? I haven’t heard of any have you? So why is this being talked about?
In reply to Western Point of View
no no sorry, i didn’t really word that right. Both groups have a right (unless there is Shariah, which india clearly does not have) to protest whatever they want. At the same time, advocating and protesting against superstition? Its all symantics at that point. But you are correct, perfectly reasonable. They should protest whatever.