The Atheist Blogger

The following is an email I sent to the Student’s Union at Royal Holloway after they made the grave error (in my opinion) of banning the Christian Union from holding their faith week after an incident at one of their lunchtime talks. Comments, opinions, and disagreements are all welcome.

To Whom It May Concern,

I was absolutely astounded at the decision of the Student’s Union to cancel the lunchtime bookings made by the Christian Union at Royal Holloway. Before I continue, let it be known that I am not a Christian, nor do I support the views held by the Christian Union in the slightest. I am the president of the Royal Holloway Secular Students group on campus, and despite our differences we have had a positive relationship with the Christian Union during the last 3 years. This relationship has enabled us to have several engaging debates on issues such as religion and the existence of God. It was at one of these debates (“Can we know God?”) last night that I was informed by a member of the Christian Union about the SU’s aforementioned decision.

I am writing to you to express my outrage and utter disbelief over this decision, which I believe was made without proper consideration or rationalisation. Firstly, the email that was sent to cancel these events and offer the refund of the fees paid was undeniably vague, alluding to something “wholly inappropriate” that had apparently caused “controversy” at the lunch event on Tuesday 9th February. I later learned (from an unverified source, so please correct me if this is wrong) that this controversial, inappropriate idea was that God had caused the Asian tsunami as some sort of punishment^[1].

If this is indeed the cause of the controversy, I can completely understand why. Such an idea is not only irrational, but blatantly disrespectful of the people, and families of people lost in that terrible tragedy. You may wonder then, why I am so against your decision. It is because, as a rationalist and sceptic, I cannot abide censorship of any form. All ideas, especially the controversial ones, are valid for discussion. Our entire modern culture, science, and political system is built on radical inappropriate ideas being discussed openly without fear. The strength of the ideology of free speech is that anyone can have an opinion, no-matter how absurd or offensive, because at the end of the day, those on the opposition have the same freedom to refute the absurdities.

It is unbelievable that at a university, a place where the very discussion of ideas forms part of the purpose of the institution, censorship of an idea can take place under the guise of “not being suitable” as you stated in your email. By disallowing the presentation of an idea, the Student’s Union has issued a statement; that it has the control over what students can think, what we can discuss in public, what ideas are “correct” and which are not. If anything is inappropriate here, it is the use of political correctness at an institution where the search for truth, whatever that truth might be, should be held as the highest form of being. I ask you, what is the purpose of our education if we cannot question what we are taught, challenge ideas where we see fit, and discuss the alternative possibilities openly?

I plead you to see reason, and let the Christian Union continue to host talks, preach, and cause controversy. Controversy feeds the mind; it allows us to think about new ideas, to explore them, and to refute them. Causing controversy is a right protected by the freedom of speech; getting offended by such controversy and using that offence to censor ideas, is not. By all means, be offended, shout, scream with a fiery passion, but for the sake of the freedoms which we hold dear, do not stoop to the level of censoring ideas! As I have previously stated, there isn’t much agreement to be had between my society and the Christian Union, yet I respect their right to have the opinions they do, as long as they respect my right to disagree with them. We debate them annually to share our views with those who might not have heard them before, to challenge notions that may be held dear, and to make known our disagreement in an intellectual forum.

I have sent a copy of this email to my friends, to members of the Royal Holloway Secular Students, and to members of the Christian Union. I will give them instructions to forward it to you if they support the freedom of speech and the discussion of ideas as much as I do. I hope this will make you see the irrationality behind your decision. If not, and if the Christian Union are still prohibited from speaking at the end of the week, I am quite prepared to send this letter to the Founder^[2], the NUS^[3], and as many media organisations connected to students as possible. I honestly hope it does not come to that, but if it must, it must.

-Adrian

Our debate last night went extremely well, with both speakers for the atheist / agnostic side presenting clear arguments and defending criticism from the audience. It helps when one of them is a PhD student in evolutionary psychology though.

Over a year ago I wrote about how my “atheist union” posters were ripped down and vandalized by unknown religious students, but whilst I was annoyed and angry at the attacks, they simply do not scale in comparison with the actual death threats that some students have received. The Leeds University Atheist Society runs an annual “rationalist week” to promote freethinking, atheism, skepticism, etc. During the event, a member of the society was threatened by a suspected Muslim student. The death threat took place outside the main festival tent, and was a face to face encounter.

The society has received death threats before from a Muslim student group, and nobody has been harmed. The victim this time has decided not to go to the police, possibly because the last threats were not followed through. It seems like the Muslim society is using the scare tactics that religions have used for thousands of years, and such tactics tend not to work on the rationally minded. Nevertheless, this is completely unacceptable behaviour, and a sure sign that the Muslim groups are participating in a campaign to destroy freedom of speech.

Further evidence of this can be seen in the attempts made by the Southampton Atheist Society to hold a debate on freedom of speech that contained a viewing of the “controversial” movie Fitna. It took two months to organize after the Muslim society continually objected to it, and the debate was finally held under the condition that police were there, and every student was searched by security. What exactly are Muslims afraid of? That we will expose their religion for the fraud it is? If so, they needn’t be afraid; we’ve known that ever since it was formed. If Islam was really the most truthful religion, then what harm can some atheists do? Why not come along to the debate and refute the claims made by the atheists? My guess is that the atheist’s claims are completely accurate, and the Muslim is simply too indoctrinated to accept anything other than what the Qur’an tells them.

Chloë Clifford-Frith of the AHS (National Federation of Atheist, Humanist, and Secular Student Groups) noted that there were an increasing number of examples of prejudice against atheists.

Leeds have experienced death threats, vandalism, theft and SU discrimination in the past. Warwick Atheists were also stripped of their ‘Best New Society’ award and prize money in 2008 after a complaint that a poster for one of their talks was offensive. The award, but not the prize money was returned some months later. Some societies have experienced problems with their SUs refusing to ratify their existence. Again, this is symptomatic of a wider suspicion of people who profess to be atheists – as if there is something threatening about not believing in a god or gods. Even Prof Richard Dawkins, when attempting to set up the charitable educational foundation ‘The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science’, had his forms returned to him with the suspicious question: ‘Please explain how “science” has benefited humanity’!

We shall have to see what lies ahead for my student group when we try to hold events this year. I’ve already emailed the Muslim society asking for a debate, but I doubt they will respond to my request.

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.