Seeking Common Ground: Why Progressive Muslims & Atheists Should Work Together

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Can progressive Muslims and atheists actually find ways to work together? Some of my atheist comrades may disagree with me, but I think so. Of course we may diverge on whether a God exists, or if there is an afterlife, but when it comes to this world and the problems humans face, our tribes have much we agree on. And our agreements are not petty or tangential. They are sources of energy that can be harnessed for a much needed change.

So what do we agree on? Well besides opposing theocracy, blasphemy laws, and Bronze-age ethics, we promote human rights, freedom of conscience, separation of Mosque and State, education, and compassion.

To read more:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/quranalyzeit/2015/08/05/seeking-common-ground/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Islamic+Wisdom&utm_content=49

I belong to a number of social justice groups. Some are oriented for theists, others are not. What unites all of us in these groups is our social vision.

[trotsky]

1. Why does anyone need lecturing on this?

If you don't push your god into the public sphere and base our laws on your god beliefs, then we'll be able to work together just fine.

For the record, I live in Ilhan Omar's district and was proud to vote for her to represent me in Congress.

Where this issue gets murky is when you have otherwise progressive believers who want to insist that religion is NEVER a factor in extremism, that true religious belief is always liberal and good, and the folks who are infringing on the rights of others are simply acting in human ways, and their religion has nothing to do with it. You're revising history to try and claim that your religion was never responsible for anything bad.

That's disingenuous and deceitful, and you and I will not get along. Understand, guillaumeb?

[guillaumeb]

2. Not everyone needs to read this.

As to your narrative, it is ironic that the article addresses this as well.

When you truly understand this, you might abandon that narrative.

[trotsky]

3. Yes, the article DOES address this.

You should read it over and over until you actually understand it.

[Major Nikon]

9. It does, but then it also goes on to make the same familiar smear

It posits that one can't disparage a particular religion without disparaging all religionists who subscribe to that religion.

It's more than a bit ironic when religionists claim intolerance whenever someone criticizes their religion as if it's no different than intolerance of the religioinists themselves. Their own intolerance robs them of the critical thinking ability required to differentiate between those things.

It's really just more of the same. The idea is as long as atheists just STFU about the inherent downsides to religion, they will get along just fine. The difference is at least the author is at least somewhat receptive to the idea there is wickedness for which religion is at least partly responsible, but it's unsurprisingly written off as "cultural" and the product of "extremists" as if the mainstream religion itself is free from fault.

[trotsky]

10. "...as long as atheists just STFU about the inherent downsides to religion, they will get along..."

Yep, nail on the head.

Because as gil shows us over and over, theists like him don't accept there are ANY downsides to religion. If it appears to be a downside, well then that's just humans being humans and religion had nothing to do with it.

[Major Nikon]

11. But if any religionist does something good, religion gets all the credit

...and human nature had nothing to do with it.

Doublethink that strong suggests delusional thinking, assuming any of this nonsense is sincere. For all we know it’s just an act for the benefit of the fan club.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. You really should read the stuff you post.

[edhopper]

4. I think the Muslim world desperately needs an enlightenment

much like what Europe went through. And though this country was founded on the Enlightenment, many areas have regressed to pre-enlightenment thinking.
This Enlightenment must come from within. so all who support this, atheist, christian, etc...must work with progressive muslims.

[guillaumeb]

5. Agreed.

[uriel1972]

6. IF they (progressive Muslims) respect our (progressive Atheists) boundries...

We can respect theirs and work together. Same with progressive Christians, Pastafarians, Satanists etc. I don't see any trouble as long as religious beliefs are not turned into "Rules to be followed by all".

You want to wear a headscarf... go for your life, you want to wear a cross... knock yourself out, A colander... hey no problem. Just don't expect it to be mandatory for all.

You don't believe in abortion... don't have one, you don't believe in homosexual relationships... don't have one, so on and so forth. Secularism is not that hard.

As it was said in the past, "Your right to throw a punch ends where my chin begins." I have no problem working with religious people who get and respect that. I have to bite my tongue a lot, but that's a small price to pay for the company.

Just a question... why do progressive Atheists, who are probably far outnumbered by progressive Muslims have to be the ones to make accommodations. Since when were progressive Atheists so powerful? Progressive Atheists are a weak minority, the only ally we really have is secular law.

[guillaumeb]

7. Very well said.

And we should all recognize our commonalities. And that recognition, as the author notes, means seeing what we agree on instead of focusing on differences.

[uriel1972]

8. Maybe...

but the differences exist and must be respected. Boundries need to be set to prevent overreach by any group.