On Ayaan Hirsi Ali, atheists, and free speech

[rug]

Following her first contribution to this column a few weeks ago, today’s guest column is once again written by Sarah Jones, Communications Associate for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The views expressed in this piece belong to Jones and do not necessarily reflect those of her employer.

Chris Stedman | Apr 24, 2014

Controversy over Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s rescinded Brandeis honorary doctorate continues to roil certain corners of the atheist world, with many framing it as an unforgivable insult to a prominent women’s rights activist.

The reality is a bit more complicated. Although it’s undeniable that Hirsi Ali experienced horrific violence, her crusade for women’s rights seems to have transformed over the years into a crusade against Islam.

Her detractors—myself included—have pointed out that she supports a Western conquest of Islam, believes that Muslims should be converted to Christianity, and has blamed multiculturalists for being “advocates of silence” that drove Anders Breivik to slaughter seventy-seven people, most of them children.

Any rational observer should be able to acknowledge that many of her statements are prejudiced. Yet that seems to be one step too far for some atheists, who point to Hirsi Ali’s early experiences with Islam as justification for her views

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/04/24/ayaan-hirsi-ali-atheists-free-speech/

[longship]

1. "...believes that Muslims should be converted to Christianity"

Uhm! Really!?

Hirsi Ali is an atheist. I am sure that she has absolutely no interest whatsoever in converting anybody to Christianity.

Where do these people get these ideas? I mean other than just making shit up.

Is there any evidence for her taking this position?

[cbayer]

3. She definitely has taken that position.

Here is the linked interview that addresses that.

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/why-christians-should-try-to-convert-muslims/

Her basic premise is that Islam should be countered in any way possible and that christians have an obligation to do so.

[longship]

4. That is a bizarre opinion for an atheist.

But then again, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is kind of a controversial figure.

I am surprised by this.

[cbayer]

7. I think she just sees it preferable to them being Muslims

and doesn't think there is any chance at all of converting them to atheism.

At least there are some links between Islam and Christianity that you might be able to convince some Muslims to follow.

[longship]

8. Damn! That's a tough stance for one to take.

One has to have some sort of cognitive dissonance to resolve that position as an atheist.

Maybe that's a mistake. For instance, I do not give a damn what people believe. However, I care very much about how they act. This invites all sorts of cognitive dissonances in its own right. But I do not know any other way for people to judge others except by their actions.

It does not bother me that not everybody is an atheist. It bothers me a whole lot how people carry on in the name of their gods.

If only they would keep it to themselves.

Therein lies the problem. It entices me to become not just atheist, but more generally anti-religion, other than not seeing any modern advantage to it.

[cbayer]

9. Well, she is certainly not one to shy from controversy.

And her hatred of Islam overrides everything else, apparently.

I think that is why the author so strenuously objects to what she is saying.

As far as people keeping it themselves, I think I part with you on this point. While I think imposition of one's beliefs is one thing, identification or stating that one's personal beliefs/non-beliefs drive some of their actions is ok with me.

I see no point in being anti-religion or anti-atheist. People are what they are and when it comes to religion, tolerance is what is called for, imo.

She certainly does not have that.

[longship]

10. Well, let me clarify myself somewhat.

I have no objection to the occasional JWs and Mormons (Bobsie twin guys -- always dressed alike, but always two of them) knocking on my door. I am always polite, but politely dismissive. I see no point in maligning their beliefs in spite of my disagreement. On occasion I have invited them in for a cuppa and some discussion, but not often. More often the Mormons than the Jehovah Witnessers.

But I am still polite.

However, where I draw the line is when they use a position in government to foist their beliefs on the public, or to mandate some kind of universal respect that I strongly believe is undeserving. Consider LGBT rights, or women's reproductive rights as an example.

Again, I can react to actions far more effectively than beliefs. That is where I choose my battles. There is much more I can do against the former and much less anybody can do for the latter. That these things inevitably overlap makes it difficult. But I can only speak to their actions, which is on their consciences, not mine. I reserve the right to remind them of that. The extent that it overlaps with their beliefs... So be it! First put your own house in order.



Hope you are well and your travels have gone without travails.

[cbayer]

11. We are in agreement here.

I've never invited any of these people into my home, though. I don't like proselytizing. Living on a boat certainly has an advantage in that area. The only people knocking on my door are people looking for legitimate work, lol.

Doing well here. Hope things are warming up in your part of the world.

[Jim__]

5. delete - dupe

[rug]

6. That phrase is odd but the prior one is right: "she supports a Western conquest of Islam".

Her statements gave even the libertarian Reason pause.

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace."

Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?

Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.

http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/10/the-trouble-is-the-west/2

[cbayer]

2. Powerful piece.

I am glad to see anyone stand up against bigotry. It matters not at all if you are a believer or not, bigotry in any form should not be tolerated.

And being a member of one group that suffers prejudice does not excuse spewing that prejudice onto another group.