The Atheist Blogger

Yesterday, I attended the launch of a new UK charity, the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS). They are similar to the international charity Secular Student Alliance, an organisation of which my student group is affiliated.

The plan was to travel up to London by catching the 8:23am train, a feat that was made immediately impossible for me, as I slept through three alarms and woke up at 8:40. Literally running the 2 miles from my house to the train station, I arrived only to find that all the self-service ticket machines had gone faulty (even the cash ones). Finally on the train, I mused over the frequent saying that when something goes wrong, everything else seems to go wrong as well, but eventually resorted to shoving this highly irrational thought to the back of my mind to get beaten into a pulp by psychological projections of Daniel Dennett. Instead, I concentrated on trying not to throw up as the train hurtled along to London (being England, there were of course no seats available).

Arriving in London, I met up with the only other member of our group who had bothered to turn up (or perhaps he was the only one who woke up on time), Jack. We were already running late, but I was assured by a quick phone call to the President of the AHS, Norman Ralph, that everyone was just mingling for the first hour. We arrived at Conway Hall, the “headquarters” of the South Place Ethical Society, the oldest surviving freethought organisation in the world, and were met by the Norman Ralph and introduced to a few members of the organisation.

The hall was filled with students, and organisations like the National Secular Society (NSS) and the British Humanist Association (BHA) had set up tables packed with information. I took the opportunity to join the BHA for half-price (we’re in a recession y’know), and to talk to members of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, who are planning to protest Sharia Law courts in the UK on March 7th.

At that moment, Richard Dawkins walked into the room. While officials went to greet him, Jack and I were reduced to giggling schoolgirls, whispering “That’s Richard Dawkins…3 feet away from me” to each other. We eventually regained our manly composure, and I decided I’d go talk to the professor, something which Jack decided was “too much”. Richard Dawkins was standing on his own, a banana in his hand, when I snuck up on him and introduced myself, saying how I was a fan of his work, and how it was just amazing to meet him. He said he liked my t-shirt (“There’s probably no god…”) and that he’d been seeing the colour scheme being used in various places. I finally told him that my friends would kill me if I didn’t get a picture taken with him, and he happily obliged.

Richard Dawkins shows he is not afraid of the atheist's nightmare.

In his speech, which was preceded with talks by Polly Toynbee and Professor A C Grayling, Dawkins pledged to support any student group that wanted to start up, and to write to his charity (The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science) if we ever needed money to organise events. The audience rightly applauded the pledge, and Dawkins ended his speech with a few highly amusing anecdotes.

So the Royal Holloway Secular Students will be joining the ranks of the AHS, and hopefully be running numerous events throughout the next year, especially with the support the AHS, SSA, and RDF!

A few photos I took of the event are available in my photos section.

If there is anything to be said of the UK government’s actions on free speech this week, it is that they are consistent. First, they ban Geert Wilders, an elected politician in the Netherlands from entering the UK to show his film to the House of Lords (an event he was invited to I might add). Geert Wilders’ movie “Fitna” portrays the Qur’an as a book filled with hate, and argues that the teachings within it have encouraged followers to commit terrorism and violence towards women. All of his accusations are accurate. The Qur’an has many examples of both intolerance and violence in its pages, and this needs to be brought to attention of politicians if they are going to start making laws against “discrimination” of religions.

Secondly, the UK government announced today that the Westboro Baptist Church were banned from the UK. The group, known for protesting the funerals of dead soldiers and pro-gay events, had planned on coming to the UK to protest a play that was being performed. The play was about the torture and murder of a gay American student, and has been the target of the church before in the US. I wrote a blog post yesterday that argued for the right of the WBC to picket the event, on the ground of free speech. They weren’t telling people to go out and kill gay people (as Muslim clerics often preach) but instead they were preaching what the Bible says, that homosexuality is an “abomination”.

This is what angers me the most. That it is somehow “ok” to pick and choose what freedom of speech entails; that just because large amounts of Muslims believe that killing non-believers is a divine right, to reject that view and argue against it is a violation of religious freedom; that fringe groups wanting to express ideas cannot express them if they might somehow upset the status quo. Sure, what the WBC preach is hatred, but the fact that we recognise it as hatred is evidence enough that people are going to reject it and counter it with their own opinions. Banning such opinions isn’t going to make them go away, and I suspect that the “prohibition” effect will simply make their words louder and heard more often.

Freedom of speech has limits, it has to in order for it to work. The point is though, that any limits need to be kept to a minimum, and it can usually be kept to just one, namely, any speech that incites people to commit crimes. You can say you dislike  someone, or that you hate them for whatever reason, but as soon as you encourage people to harm them, or kill them, or commit crimes against them, you are stepping out of the boundaries of freedom of speech. It is for these reasons that I do not support banning the Bible or the Qur’an for their content, but rather make sure that the content can be critised in every medium available, and why I support the right of the WBC to say what they do about homosexuals, atheists, muslims, etc. As long as I have my right to say what I think in return, then we have no problems. It is when you suppress freedom of speech, as the UK government has done in the cases of Geert Wilders and the WBC, that the entire system becomes worthless. We might as well not have freedom of speech in this country if our government can decide what is and what is not acceptable on the fly as it appears they currently think they can do.