DOCSLIB.ORG

My Name Is Andrew Seidel. I'm an Attorney at the Freedom From

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
My Name Is Andrew Seidel. I'm an Attorney at the Freedom From My name is Andrew Seidel. I’m an attorney at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, headquartered here in Madison. I’m also a resident of this city. I am a son, a citizen, a husband, a father to be … and an atheist. I believe in many things: friendship, compassion, public service, leaving the world a better place, and love. I just don’t believe in god. I struggle with my mortality, strive to maintain my morality, and seek to spread happiness. I just don’t believe in god. In many places in this country, those words would not only condemn me to ridicule and alienation, but open me up to discrimination. Legal, unchallengeable discrimination. The Arkansas Constitution says that “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office … nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.”1 South Carolina’s state law mandates “that the president of the University shall not be an atheist or infidel.”2 Texas prohibits religious tests for public office, provided the person “acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”3 It has always been acceptable to discriminate against atheists. And even though these codified examples cannot be enforced, there are countless examples of atheists being discriminated against in this country. In Kansas City and South Carolina we’ve seen shelters and soup kitchens reject atheist volunteers—willing, helping hands rejected because their heads could not accept a belief in god. Other discrimination is more insidious and destructive. We’ve seen a rise in atheist parents having custody denied or curtailed because of their irreligion.4 We’ve seen model employees outed as nonbelievers and then immediately begin receiving lower performance evaluations and even being fired.5 We see discounts to religious people, which effectively charge atheists a higher price for the same goods. Here in Madison one store gave out free gallons of milk to Christians, while forcing atheists to pay full price.6 Schools block atheist groups from forming and filter out atheist and freethought websites as “alternative” beliefs.7 If any group in this country needs protection it’s the one that is least liked and most distrusted. When it comes to voting for an otherwise qualified candidate, atheists rank below Jewish, Mormon, LGBT and Muslim Candidates—we fall 14 percentage points below a gay or lesbian candidate, simply because of our irreligion.8 The same trend holds for parents asked about potential spouses for their children—atheists fall well below every other group.9 A December 2011 study found that atheists are among our society’s most distrusted groups. We ranked below Christians, Muslims, gay men, feminists, and Jews— ranking at the bottom, with rapists, as least trustworthy.10 Of course, it is easier to hide one’s atheism than sexual orientation or skin color because it’s less visible. But nobody should have to hide who they are in order to be treated fairly. It’s time that atheists enjoy the same protections as other Americans, and I encourage this council set an example and take this historic first step. Thank you. 1 Ark. Const. art. XIX, § 1. 2 S.C. Code Ann. § 59-117-100. 3 Tex. Const. art. I, § 4. 4 FFRF received 15 complaints on these issues from 2013-2014. According to Constitutional Scholar Eugene Volokh the following cases all involve “discrimination against the irreligious or less religious: Blevins v. Bardwell, 784 So. 2d 166, 175 (Miss. 2001); Staggs v. Staggs, 2005 WL 1384525 (Miss. App.); Brekeen v. Brekeen, 880 So. 2d 280, 282 (Miss. 2004); Turner v. Turner, 824 So. 2d 652, 655-56 (Miss. App. 2002); Pacheco v. Pacheco, 770 So. 2d 1007, 1011 (Miss. App. 2000); Weigand v. Houghton, 730 So.2d 581 (Miss. 1999); Johnson v. Gray, 859 So. 2d 1006, 1014-15 (Miss. 2003); McLemore v. McLemore, 762 So. 2d 316 (Miss. 2000); Hodge v. Hodge, 188 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1966); Johns v. Johns, 918 S.W.2d 728 (Ark. App. 1996); Ark. Sup. Ct. admin. order no. 15 (enacted 1999); Peacock v. Peacock, 903 So.2d 506, 513-14 (La. App. 2005); Pahal v. Pahal, 606 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (La. App. 1992); Ulvund v. Ulvund, 2000 WL 33407372 (Mich. App.); Mackenzie v. Cram, 1998 WL 1991050 (Mich. App.); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 1996 WL 33347958 (Mich. App.); Jonhston v. Plessel, 2004 WL 384143 (Minn. Ct. App.); In re Storlein, 386 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); McAlister v. McAlister, 747 A.2d 390, 393 (Pa. Super. 2000); Thomas v. Thomas, 739 A.2d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. 1999); Gancas v. Schultz, 683 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 1996); Scheeler v. Rudy, 2 Pa. D. & C. 3d 772, 780 (Com. Pl. 1977); Shainwald v. Shainwald, 395 S.E.2d 441, 446 (S.C. App. 1990); Hulm v. Hulm, 484 N.W.2d 303, 305 & n.* (S.D. 1992); In re Davis, 30 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000); Snider v. Grey, 688 S.W.2d 602, 611 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985); In re F.J.K., 608 S.W.2d 301 (Tex. Ct. App. 1980); In re Marriage of Moorhead, 224 N.W.2d 242, 244 (Iowa 1974); Ahlman v. Ahlman, 267 N.W.2d 521, 523 (Neb. 1978); Dean v. Dean, 232 S.E.2d 470, 471-72 (N.C. App. 1977); Robert O. v. Judy E., 90 Misc.2d 439, 442 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1977).” See also, Larro Ava, Atheism, Divorce, and Custody Battles, ATHEIST HAVEN, Nov. 15, 2007, available at http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2007/11/atheism- divorce-and-custody-battles.html; Cenk Uygur, Shocking: Agnostic Dad Loses Custody of Kids, ALTERNET, Nov. 30, 2010, available at http://www.alternet.org/story/149037/shocking%3A_agnostic_dad_loses_custody_of_kids; Ed Brayton, New Ruling on Religion and Custody, SCIENCE BLOGS, Jan.2, 2008, available at http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/01/02/new-ruling-on-religion-and-cus/; Atheism and Custody Cases, The Friendly Atheist, Jan. 2, 2008, available at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/02/atheism-and-custody-cases/ ; Austin Cline, Atheists Discriminated Against in Child Custody Cases, available at http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/30/atheists-discriminated-against-in-child-custody-cases.htm. 5 FFRF has had nearly 30 of these complaints from 2013-2014. See also Hammer, J.H., Cragun, R.T., Hwang, K and Smith, J.M. 2012. Forms, Frequency, and Correlates of Perceived Anti- Atheist Discrimination, in SECULARISM AND NONRELIGION 1:43-67, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/snr.ad 6 See Saga of a Civil Rights Complaint, THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, available at http://ffrf.org/outreach/item/18533-saga-of-a-civil-rights-complaint. 7 See School Won’t Censor Secular websites, THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, available at http://ffrf.org/legal/other-legal-successes/item/22185-school-won-t-censor-secular- websites-november-14-2014; FFRF Unblocks Atheist Websites from San Antonio ISD Filter, THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, available at http://ffrf.org/legal/other-legal-successes/item/12575-ffrf-unblocks-atheist-websites-from-san- antonio-isd-filter-feb-16-2012; Indianapolis Public Schools Changes Discriminatory Internet filtering, THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, available at http://ffrf.org/legal/other-legal-successes/item/12461-indianapolis-public-schools-changes- discriminatory-internet-filtering. 8 A more recent study put the number who would vote for atheists even lower. See Daisy Grewal, In Atheists we Distrust, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (Jan 17, 2012) (noting that only 45% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist presidential candidate; and that atheists are rated the least desirable groups as potential son/daughters-in-law) available at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/. 9 John Allen Paulos, Who’s Counting: Distrusting Atheists, ABC News, April 2, 2006, available at http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422. 10 See Will M. Gervais et. al., Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice, JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol 101(6), Dec 2011, 1189- 1206, data and study at http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Gervais%20et%20al- %20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
    RECORD NO. 17-15769 Case: 17-15769 Date Filed: 04/24/2018 Page: 1 of 48 In The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit DAVID WILLIAMSON, CHASE HANSEL, KEITH BECHER, RONALD GORDON, JEFFERY KOEBERL, CENTRAL FLORIDA FREETHOUGHT COMMUNITY, SPACE COAST FREETHOUGHT ASSOCIATION, HUMANIST COMMUNITY OF THE SPACE COAST, Plaintiffs – Appellees – Cross Appellants, v. BREVARD COUNTY, Defendant – Appellant – Cross Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ______________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION, AND AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES – CROSS APPELLANTS ______________ Monica L. Miller AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION 1821 Jefferson Place, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 238-9088 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae GibsonMoore Appellate Services, LLC 206 East Cary Street ♦ P.O. Box 1406 (23218) ♦ Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 249- 7770 ♦ www.gibsonmoore.net Case: 17-15769 Date Filed: 04/24/2018 Page: 2 of 48 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 11th Circuit Rule 26.1-1, amici curiae, the American Humanist Association, Unitarian Universalist Association, and American Ethical Union make the following disclosure: Each is a nonprofit membership association, exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Each has no parent or publicly held company owning ten percent or more of the corporation. OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Amici further certify that the following persons and entities have or may have an interest in the outcome of this appeal, as previously provided to the Court by Brevard County: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Infidel and the Professor: David Hume, Adam Smith, and The
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. introduction DEAREST FRIENDS s David Hume lay on his deathbed in the summer of 1776, much of the British public, both north and south of the A Tweed, waited expectantly for news of his passing. His writ- ings had challenged their views— philosophical, political, and espe- cially religious— for the better part of four decades. He had experi- enced a lifetime of abuse and reproach from the pious, including a concerted effort to excommunicate him from the Church of Scot- land, but he was now beyond their reach. Everyone wanted to know how the notorious infidel would face his end. Would he show re- morse or perhaps even recant his skepticism? Would he die in a state of distress, having none of the usual consolations afforded by belief in an afterlife? In the event Hume died as he had lived, with remark- able good humor and without religion. The most prominent account of his calm and courageous end was penned by his best friend, a renowned philosopher in his own right who had just published a book that would soon change the world. While The Wealth of Nations was, in Adam Smith’s own words, a “very violent attack . upon the whole commercial system of Great Britain,” it was on the whole quite well received.1 Smith was to suffer far more opprobrium on account of a short public letter that he wrote later that year describing—e ven flaunting— the cheerfulness and equanimity of Hume’s final days.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentalism Themenheft 8
    Themenheft 8 Herbert Rainer Pelikan Fundamentalism Themenheft 8 Herbert Rainer Pelikan Fundamentalism Extreme Tendencies in modern Christianity, Islam and Judaism (= Evang. Rundbrief, SNr. 1/2003) Wien 2003 Vorwort Der Begriff Fundamentalismus ist ein Thema der aktuellen Diskussion; Grund genug, sich damit auch aus ethischer Sicht zu beschäftigen. Fundamentalismus, der sich nach der iranischen Ayatollah-Revolution (1979) verbreite- te, ist heute fast ein Schimpfwort geworden. Fundamentalismus ist keineswegs ein speziell christliches oder islamisches Phänomen, son- dern die Gefahr einer jeden - auch säkularen - Weltanschauung und Religion. Anstelle eines vertrauenden und Wachstumsfähigen Glaubens wird ein absoluter und endgültiger Wahrheits- standpunkt bezogen, der nicht in der Diskussion einsichtig gemacht, sondern nur mit Macht behauptet wird. Fundamentalismus ist ein sehr ambivalentes Thema. Denn grundsätzlich ist es ja zu begrüßen, wenn Menschen ihr Leben auf einem festen Funda- ment aufbauen. Das gilt ja auch für den Glauben, wie das Gleichnis Jesu Vom Hausbau (Mt. 7, 24-29) sehr deutlich zeigt: 24 Darum, wer diese meine Rede hört und tut sie, der gleicht einem klugen Mann, der sein Haus auf Fels baute. 25 Als nun ein Platzregen fiel und die Wasser kamen und die Winde wehten und stießen an das Haus, fiel es doch nicht ein; denn es war auf Fels gegrün- det. 26 Und wer diese meine Rede hört und tut sie nicht, der gleicht einem törichten Mann, der sein Haus auf Sand baute. 27 Als nun ein Platzregen fiel und die Wasser kamen und die Winde wehten und stießen an das Haus, da fiel es ein und sein Fall war groß. Ins Politische übertragen könnte man hier von einem Hochhalten einer Werteorientierung in positiver Abgrenzung gegenüber einem Opportunismus sprechen.
    [Show full text]
  • Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques
    SAUDI PUBLICATIONS ON HATE IDEOLOGY INVADE AMERICAN MOSQUES _______________________________________________________________________ Center for Religious Freedom Freedom House 2 Copyright © 2005 by Freedom House Published by the Center for Religious Freedom Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner without the written permission of Freedom House, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Center for Religious Freedom Freedom House 1319 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-296-5101 Fax: 202-296-5078 Website: www.freedomhouse.org/religion ABOUT THE CENTER FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM The CENTER FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is a division of Freedom House. Founded more than sixty years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie, and other Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorship of the far left and the far right. Its Center for Religious Freedom defends against religious persecution of all groups throughout the world. It insists that U.S foreign policy defend those persecuted for their religion or beliefs around the world, and advocates the right to religious freedom for every individual. Since its inception in 1986, the Center, under the leadership of human rights lawyer Nina Shea, has reported on the religious persecution of individuals and groups abroad and undertaken advocacy on their behalf in the media, Congress, State Department, and the White House. It also sponsors investigative field missions. Freedom House is a 501(c)3 organization, headquartered in New York City.
    [Show full text]
  • Coming to Terms: Fundamentalists Or Islamists? by Martin Kramer Middle East Quarterly Spring 2003, Pp
    Coming to Terms: Fundamentalists or Islamists? by Martin Kramer Middle East Quarterly Spring 2003, pp. 65­77 http://www.meforum.org/541/coming­to­terms­fundamentalists­or­islamists No one who reads or writes about events in the Muslim world can avoid the question of how to label those Muslims who invoke Islam as the source of authority for all political and social action. Should they be labeled Islamic (or Muslim) fundamentalists? Or are they better described as Islamists? The issue has been the subject of a heated debate for two decades. For a while, both general and scholarly usage in America accepted fundamentalism. Islamism emerged in the late 1980s in French academe and then crossed into English, where it eventually displaced Islamic fundamentalism in specialized contexts. More recently, the term Islamism has gained even wider currency, and since September 11, 2001, it may even have established itself as the preferred American usage. Still newer terminology may lie over the horizon. Behind the battle over usage lies another struggle, over the nature of the phenomenon itself. In fact, the two contests, over English usage and analytical understanding, are inseparable. Nor are they free of associations left by past usages. Here follows a short history of changing usage—itself a history of changing Western perceptions of Muslim reality. The Debut of Islamism The term Islamism first appeared in French in the mid­eighteenth century. But it did not refer to the modern ideological use of Islam, which had not yet come into being. Rather, it was a synonym for the religion of the Muslims, which was then known in French as mahométisme, the religion professed and taught by the Prophet Muhammad.
    [Show full text]
  • Infidel Geologists! the Cultural Context of Ellen White's Statements on Geological Science
    Christian Spirituality and Science Issues in the Contemporary World Volume 10 Issue 1 Chronology, Theology and Geology Article 3 2015 Infidel Geologists! The Cultural Context of Ellen White's Statements on Geological Science Cornelis S. Bootsman Auckland Adventist High School, [email protected] Lynden J. Rogers Avondale College of Higher Education, [email protected] Kevin C. deBerg Avondale College of Higher Education, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://research.avondale.edu.au/css Recommended Citation Bootsman, C. S., Rogers, L. J., & deBerg, K. C. (2015). Infidel geologists! The cultural context of Ellen White's statements on geological science. Christian Spirituality and Science, 10(1), 33-60. Retrieved from https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol10/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Avondale Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Science at ResearchOnline@Avondale. It has been accepted for inclusion in Christian Spirituality and Science by an authorized editor of ResearchOnline@Avondale. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bootsman et al.: Infidel Geologists! The Cultural Context of Ellen White's Stateme Infidel Geologists! The Cultural Context of Ellen White's Statements on Geological Science Cornelis S Bootsman Auckland Adventist High School Lynden J Rogers School of Science and Mathematics Avondale College of Higher Education and Kevin C de Berg School of Science and Mathematics Avondale College of Higher Education ABSTRACT Ellen White’s repeated and strident denunciations of ‘infidel geologists’ and their ideas in her 1864 monograph “Spiritual Gifts” are well known.
    [Show full text]
  • Not “For God and Country”: Atheist Military Chaplains and the Free Exercise Clause
    Not “For God and Country”: Atheist Military Chaplains and the Free Exercise Clause By ANTONY BARONE KOLENC* Introduction THROUGHOUT HISTORY, CHAPLAINS HAVE MINISTERED to the religious needs of military members. They provide “spiritual care and the opportunity for [military] members, their families, and other authorized personnel to exercise their Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.”1 The motto of U.S. Army chaplains captures this fundamental spiritual core: Pro Deo et Patria 2—“For God and Coun- try.”3 But nontheists4 are now demanding their own chaplains as a religious accommodation. Although some quip that an atheist chap- * Antony Barone Kolenc, JD, University of Florida College of Law, is an Assistant Professor of Law at Florida Coastal School of Law, where he teaches Constitutional Law. He served as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps before retiring in 2012. The views expressed in this Article are those of the author alone and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Defense (“DOD”) or Florida Coastal School of Law. Professor Kolenc also acknowledges Noah B. Benton and Sara L. Goodin for their keen research assistance and contributions to this paper. 1. U.S. DEP’T OF THE AIR FORCE, POLICY DIRECTIVE 52-1, CHAPLAIN SERVICE para. 1 (2006) [hereinafter AFPD 52-1]. 2. U.S. Army Chaplaincy Mission, CHAPNET, http://chapnet.chaplaincorps.net/index .php/about-2/ (last visited May 27, 2014). 3. Randy Murrey, Army Chaplains Corps: Serving ‘God and Country’ for 234 Years with 25,000 Chaplains, U.S. ARMY (July 9, 2009), http://www.army.mil/article/24086/army- chaplains-corps-serving-god-and-country-for-234-years-with-25000-chaplains/.
    [Show full text]
  • Atheism, Agnosticism, and Nonbelief
    ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND NONBELIEF: A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF TYPE AND NARRATIVE By Christopher Frank Silver Ralph W Hood Jr Jim Tucker Professor Professor (Co-Chair) (Co-Chair) Valerie C. Rutledge David Rausch Professor Assistant Professor (Committee Member) (Committee Member) Anthony J. Lease A. Jerald Ainsworth Dean of the College of Health, Education Dean of the Graduate School and Professional Studies ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND NONBELIEF: A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF TYPE AND NARRATIVE By Christopher Frank Silver A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga, Tennessee August 2013 ii Copyright © 2013 By Christopher Frank Silver All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Extensive research has been conducted in exploration of the American religious landscape, however recently has social science research started to explore Nonbelief in any detail. Research on Nonbelief has been limited as most research focuses on the popularity of the religious “nones” or the complexities of alternative faith expressions such as spirituality. Research has been limited in exploring the complexity of Nonbelief or how non-believers would identify themselves. Most research assumes nonbelievers are a monolithic group with no variation such as Atheism or Agnosticism. Through two studies, one qualitative and one quantitative, this study explored identity of Nonbelief. Study one (the qualitative study) discovered that individuals have shared definitional agreement but use different words to describe the different types of Nonbelief. Moreover, social tension and life narrative play a role in shaping one’s ontological worldview.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ROLE of RELIGION in CONFLICT and PEACE- BUILDING the British Academy Is the UK’S Independent National Academy Representing the Humanities and Social Sciences
    THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN CONFLICT AND PEACE- BUILDING The British Academy is the UK’s independent national academy representing the humanities and social sciences. For over a century it has supported and celebrated the best in UK and international research and helped connect the expertise of those working in these disciplines with the wider public. The Academy supports innovative research and outstanding people, informs policy and seeks to raise the level of public engagement with some of the biggest issues of our time, through policy reports, publications and public events. The Academy represents the UK’s research excellence worldwide in a fast changing global environment. It promotes UK research in international arenas, fosters a global approach across UK research, and provides leadership in developing global links and expertise. www.britishacademy.ac.uk The Role of Religion in Conflict and Peacebuilding September 2015 THE BRITISH ACADEMY 10 –11 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AH www.britiahacademy.ac.uk Registered Charity: Number 233176 © The British Academy 2015 Published September 2015 ISBN 978-0-85672-618-7 Designed by Soapbox, www.soapbox.co.uk Printed by Team Contents Acknowledgements iv Abbreviations v About the authors vi Executive summary 1 1. Introduction 3 2. Definitions 5 3. Methodology 11 4. Literature review 14 5. Case study I: Religion and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 46 6. Case study II: Mali 57 7. Case study III: Bosnia and Herzegovina 64 8. Conclusions 70 9. Recommendations for policymakers and future research 73 10. Bibliography 75 Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Leonie Fleischmann and Vladimir Kmec for their assistance in the preparation of this report and to Philip Lewis, Desislava Stoitchkova and Natasha Bevan in the British Academy’s international policy team.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Jihad': Idea and History
    'Jihad': idea and history opendemocracy.net /faith-europe_islam/jihad_4579.jsp About the author Patricia Crone is professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. What is jihad? Was Islam spread by force? Muslims, morality, and religious warfare Jihad, then and now ****** What is jihad? Jihad is a subject that non-Muslims find difficult to understand. In fact, there is nothing particularly outlandish about it. All one has to remember is that holy war is not the opposite of pacifism, but rather of secular war - fighting in pursuit of aims lying outside religion. Whether people are militant or not in its pursuit is another matter. With that general observation, let me pose the four questions to be addressed in this essay. They are: Exactly what is jihad, apart from holy war in a broad sense? Is it true that Islam was spread by force? Did the pre-modern Muslims ever feel that there was anything wrong about religious warfare? What is the relevance of all this to the world today? (I must stress that when I get to this fourth topic, I am no longer speaking as a specialist). Also by Patricia Crone in openDemocracy: “What do we actually know about Mohammed? ” (31 August 2006) So first, just what is jihad? Well, actually there are two kinds, depending on whether the Muslims are politically strong or weak. I shall start with the type associated with political strength, because that's the normal type in Islamic history. I shall get to the second in connection with the question of modern relevance.
    [Show full text]
  • Existence Be Viewpoint of Sanaei Ghaznavi (Sixth-Century Poet, AH)
    International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 24 [Special Issue – December 2012] Unity – Existence be viewpoint of Sanaei Ghaznavi (Sixth-century poet, AH) Dr. Maryam Bakhtyar Department of Islamic Gnosticism Ahvaz branch, Islamic Azad university Ahvaz,Iran Abstract In investigating viewpoint of Sanaei about "Unity of Existence", locality of God, World & Human in perspective of Sanaei are considered. God is unique Essence that is not dualism- bearer. By view point of Sanaei. He is outstanding, summary of all Existence – worlds and containing ascending & descending arch that target of his creation is the insight of God. He entered from transcendental world (non- existence) to arena of world to reach to insight desert and unity with Right and survival by God. World of Existence also is manifestation Divine glory and shadow of Right (God). Key words: Unity of Existence, Ascending arch and Descending arch, Non – existence, transcendental world, annihilation, survival, love. Introduction Gnosticism is ascribed to special insight and is divided in two types of theoretical and practical Gnosticism. Theoretical Gnosticism. Theoretical Gnosticism is theology by viewpoint of name, attributes , appearances, statuses and the origin and resurrection day and practical Gnosticism is cognition of way of conduct and making effort for release from trivial – limitations hardship and finally joining to the origin. Root of Gnosticism &Islamic mysticism could be found in book of God and tradition of Greater prophet (peace be upon him) and family of prophet (peace be upon them), in a way that could be said that origin of many of Gnostics personal research & discoveries and an appearance of facts to them, is internal coziness and clear sightedness that is formed by monitoring worships & prayers and following the Mohammad (peace be upon him).
    [Show full text]
  • Village Atheists
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. INTRODUCTION THE MAKING OF THE VILLAGE ATHEIST “Ours is a land where people ought to be religious,” a Minneapolis newspaper opined with prescriptive assurance as Easter Sunday neared in 1904. Faith and reverence were Ameri- can bedrock, the paper avowed; from the White House down to the humblest home, religious allegiance was the norm. As the solemn observances of Holy Week unfolded across the city, the paper found it hard to imagine atheists and unbelievers ever being incorporated into American civic life on equal terms: “We claim religious freedom for our strongest plank in [our] national founda- tions, but irreligious freedom is another matter entirely. Let a man believe what he likes. Let him believe, however.” That citizenship and civil liberties were somehow contingent on religious belief, that religion was to be expressly privileged over irreligion— the Minnesota paper presented these as perdurable propositions gov- erning American public life.1 A decade and a half later the persistence of this perception— that being irreligious was essentially un- American— sent the bud- ding literary critic Van Wyck Brooks looking for inklings of devi- ance, if not deliverance. Brooks turned to Mark Twain to provide the needed relief, but found him instead complicit in the national fondness for religious faith— a dissembler all too fearful of public disapproval to give his unbelief full and frank expression. Em- phasizing Twain’s self- censoring evasions and posthumous defer- rals, Brooks looked beyond him to an abstracted paragon, the vil- lage atheist, as the bearer of a “vital, restless, critical, disruptive 1 For general queries, contact [email protected] © Copyright, Princeton University Press.
    [Show full text]