Are you a “fundamentalist atheist” and what is your view of religion?
March 19, 2008 by Mark
Another interesting blog post by Agnostic Atheist 
They have produced a very quick set of questions aimed at Atheists or Agnostics, to get a flavour of how common ‘fundamental atheists’ really. These were my answers:
Do you consider yourself an “atheist fundamentalist?”
Nope, I guess I’d consider myself a secular Humanist, or Agnostic Atheist. I think fundamentalism has more to do with society and individual personality, than any particular ideology. The term ‘atheist fundamentalist’ has definately been over-used by theists recently, and I think it only reflects a minority of ‘non-believers’.
What is your view of religion?
That very much depends on the particular religion, as well as the strength of faith and personality of individual believers. I think it’s dangerous to generalise theists, and athiests for that matter, based on their solely on their religious affiliation, or lack of it in some cases. For instance; I dislike Christianity, Judaism and Islam as religions, but know that many adherents of these faiths that are perfectly amiable, compassionate and intelligent people. As long as people keep it to themselves and don’t try and ram it down others’ throats, I haven’t any problems with personal religion; the same goes to non-theists as well.
Do you believe that atheism and religion can co-exist or do you support the eradication of religious beliefs?
NO! By no means do I endorse the forceful eradication of religious beliefs, such as that seen in communist Russia and China. However, I am strongly in favour of secularism. People should be presented with ‘the facts’ and given the oppurtunity to learn about the sheer diversity of human culture and belief; as well as being taught the importance of mythology and religion in humanity’s cultural evolution. I see, the secular Humanist school of, Atheism not as a complete break from the past, but something more like a direct, and natural, ‘evolution’ from religion - which too has played an important role in our recent history as a species. Above all, compassion, tolerance, and freedom of conscience are hugely important concepts to me.
Atheists are a minority and we would like our views to be respected. However, do you believe that we should reciprocate that respect to those who do not believe as we do?
Definately! Alienating, ignoring, and being patronising towards people, that hold different beliefs - no matter how delusional we may consider them - to ourselves, only excacerbates the divisions in society. Blaming current issues, such as terrorism and war, solely on religion is frankly a bit of a cop out; the real culprits are socioeconomic problems. Injustice breeds intolerance.
As for secularism in education, what do you think of things like the French hijab ban?
Hello Anon.
Ahh! Now, that’s an interesting one! Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s any clear right or wrong answer. For some, the Hijab has become a symbol of unwavering, conservative and fundamentalist Islam; wheres as, for others, it merely represents tradition, orthodoxy and purity.
Many modern governments, like those of France - which has banned Hijabs in many schools - and Turkey, - which has done the same in Universities - were largely founded upon Secularism and merely refuse to make an exception for Islam. In Turkey, 90% of the people are Muslim, yet the Secularism found there, in government and education, is no less strong than in France. It’s not, entirely, a matter of discriminating against specific groups; if it were Christians or Jews, wearing head scarves, they would, or should, be treated the same. In fact, the ban also targets bandanas, skull caps, turbans and conspicuous Christian crosses as well.
Hijabs stand out, as clear indications of specific religious faith, and threaten to create divisions in, otherwise secular, schools. In a school environment, those wearing a hijab will naturally be drawn to others dressed in the same way, and may treated as stereotypes or, at worst, with prejudice - by those that do not. Some Muslims in France have likened recent government policies, concerning the hijab, to the Nazi laws forcing “Jews to wear a yellow star”. However, the two bare no similarity; the Hijab was banned because - according to the French MP, Jacques Myard - it is “incompatible with the neutrality of the school and the French Republic”. Whether one agrees with the ban or not, the intentions were not to create great divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims, but quite the opposite. In fact, the unnecessarily loud protests of conservative Muslims have done more to alienate Islam, in France, than any government policy so far.
Many Muslim women do not wear the Hijab, and it is not specifically required by the Quran. Muslim women, in conservative Islamic cultures, have little choice in the way they interpret the Quran and are made, from a young age, to cover their bodies; often their faces too. The French Muslim Co-ordinating Committee is in favour of the ban, saying they were “shocked by the disgraceful behaviour of those who dared to defy the republic” and urge French Muslims “live with the times”.
It is known that women wore Hijabs, or similar garments, in the time of Muhammed, but it is not demanded by the Quran; therefore, it should be treated as a cultural phenomena and - in many liberal Muslim countries, particularly Egypt and Turkey - it is common to see un-veiled Muslim women in the cities. In a modern, secular country, there should be no cultural obligation, what-so-ever, to wear the Hijab. Young girls, who do not understand the controversial scriptural basis of the Hijab, should not be forced to wear it, by their parents. If an adult chooses to adhere to a specific faith, and believes that it is best for her to cover herself, then it is her right to do so. As long as their rights as a citizen, a human being and a woman, are not being breached, I do not see the problem with head scarves.
Personally, I think the ban was all a bit naive, and that the French government has wondered in to a so-called ‘field of land mines’; a law that was previously intended to oppose Islamic radicalism is now facing particularly strong opposition amongs Sikh and Jewish communities. In my eyes, secularism should be neutral of religion, not bias against it.
First off, I would just like to correct myself (just for my own sake! I know you understand…
in previously calling it a ‘hijab ban’, as it was in fact a ban of all ostentatious religious symbols.
I agree with you that secularism should be neutral of religion, and not biased against it. I also think that the reasoning behind the law was totally wrong - they said it was to promote unity. I think with this law they are purely ‘papering over the cracks’ in that many immigrants/people from a immigrant background are not at all well integrated (and many of these immigrants are Muslims, as they have come from the Mahgreb, a Muslim area). I think it would be better to have greater understanding and awareness. I also think that this law has led to greater division for a few reasons:
1) More people going into private Islamic schools, now completely separate for French state schools.
2) Some children have been expelled (although, I will admit, a relatively low proportion) and some children have chosen to continue their education in other countries, including Germany and Belgium.
3) On challenge to their beliefs, many people stick harder to them and lose the will to integrate with the ‘mainstream’ French society.
4) The ban goes some way into making the hijab the ‘political symbol’ which many of the French initially called it (one quote from a minister for the UMP said that France needed (paraphrasing - I can’t remember the exact quote!) a political answer to a political problem).
So, whatever its intentions, I think that here the ban was at best badly thought through. The law was intended to oppose fundamentalism, however many moderate Muslims are hijabis.
Have Turkey not now lifted the hijab ban in universities? After huge protest on both sides.
I am, personally, completely against this ban as I think it goes against a person’s freedom to practice their religion and forces them to decide between continuing their education and their religous convictions.
I am for choice here and I think that there is no contradiction in being against the ban in France and against the enforced hijab in, for example, Iran. I am aware of the problems in France (and worldwide) where girls are forced into wearing the hijab by cultural pressure/by their families/so they are not labeled ‘loose’ or ‘a slut’, however I am aware of many many girls who chose the hijab. I don’t think this choice should be denied them, especially as for many it is very important to them to wear the hijab. Being asked to take it off is, for some, like being asked to walk around naked. It is a shame and a loss of dignity and, for them, freedom.
One thing I must disagree with you on though is the requirement of hijab in the Qu’ran. Most Islamic scholars believe that it is required (’fard’), although it is believed that Allah knows the reaon for your wearing hijab and you should do it for the correct reasons (i.e. that you believe, and not for cultural pressure etc).
Anyway, here’s a quote from the Qu’ran:
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their Juyubihinna* and not display their beauty except to…” [Quran 24:31]
The word *Juyubihinna, according to most scholars, refers to the head, ears, neck and chest. To fulfil the minimum requirements of Hijab, a Muslim woman covers her entire body, except her face and hands. Once Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Prophet wearing thin clothes. The Prophet turned his attention from her. He said, “O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this,” and he pointed to his face and hands. [Abu Dawud].
(the explanation of Juyubihinna was also quoted and is not my words. Here’s the source: http://www.youngmuslims.ca/publications/hijab.asp)
Here’s another quote of something which I feel is quite important (from the same source):
Hijab does not apply only to clothes. It is a state of mind, behaviour, and lifestyle . Hijab celebrates a desirable quality called Haya (modesty), a deep concern for preserving one’s dignity. Haya is a natural feeling that brings us pain at the very idea of committing a wrong. The Prophet said: “Every religion has a distinct call. For Islam it is Haya (modesty).” [Ibn Majah].
So, hijab is not just covering up.
Anyway, I’m going to ’submit comment’ now and I bet as soon as I click that I’ll realise I’ve left something out…
Ah yes, I’m right, I did leave a couple of points out:
1) There have also been cases where the father of the family has asked his daughters to remove the veil in order to continue their education and ‘fit it’, and the daughters have refused. It’s not always about pressure from the culture/family, but about true religious conviction and piety.
2) There have been problems with the implementation of the ban. Items which show that you belong to a specific religion have been banned. Therefore, some Muslim girls hoped to wear a bandana as what they perceived the bare minimum (pardon the pun…). However, this was not allowed. The bandana is not a religious symbol, just a, slightly outmoded, fashion. There was a case in France were a girl of North African ethnic origin was asked to remove a bandana, as she was thought to be Muslim and therefore attempting hijab, when other caucasian French girls were not challenged at all. There was also a case where a Muslim girl was forced to take of a hat she was purely wearing because of the cold. Other girls around her were allowed to wear hats. The thing is, the ban can in some cases lead to racial discrimination.
3) I had a three… I had one…
eh, can’t have been that great a point…
Thanks for the replies
Sadly, I’m rather poorly informed on the issue, so appreciate the information 
You’re very much right about Turkey; I had forgotten this, but they did, indeed, make two constitutional amendments to remove the ban on headscarves in universities, earlier this year.
I agree with you on this. The french ban is not secular, it is strongly atheist. In reality, the ban discriminates against religious people, particularly Muslims. The fact that the french government has responded so apologetically to the population of only 6,000 French Sikhs - that complained that they were no longer allowed to wear their turbans - contrasts hugely to the hard line response to protests, by some of the 5-6 million Muslims in France.
Many Islamic Feminists are now fighting against obligations to wear head scarves, as well as being equally opposed to banning them. At the end of the day, both are mutually offensive to the freedom of a Muslim Woman; to whom the choice, of whether or not to cover herself, should lie.
Interestingly, some Christian and liberal Muslim (a minority) theologians are now arguing against wearing the head scarf, claiming that it was a merely a cultural requirement of Muhammed’s time, and not essential to reaching paradise. The Bible also instructs that women should cover themselves; but as European culture has evolved, so has the way Christian women dress:
‘…any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head. For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head… Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God. - Corinthians 11:5-16
Of course, nuns continue to cover their heads - a practice that was common for Christian women throughout medieval Europe - but, since it is not a commandment and hence not important to reaching salvation, the practice long ago became culturally obsolete.
I believe that it is the right of Muslim women, or anyone for that matter, to adorn their heads with whatever glorified square of cloth they might choose. The burqa is excessive, anti social and can be very unnerving; but if covering her head is important to a Muslim woman’s sense of modesty, identity and spiritual wellbeing, then it is certainly not the place of a religiously neutral state to legislate against it.