The paradox of acceptance vs rejection in secular settings

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I feel I do. Because we are not intolerant and close-minded. We accept people, and as we are all fundamentally humanists, we want the well-being of society that only pluralism can provide.

[genkaus]

I don't know how many of you read the NYT. But an interesting article came out recently, suggesting that foreigners are more comfortable around people of religion than atheists.

In particular, in college. Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/educat...mbers.html

Among some interesting quotes:

“Here, people are more religious, even if they’re not Muslim, and I am comfortable with that,” said Ms. Alhamad, an undergraduate in civil engineering, as several other Muslim women gathered in the student center nodded in agreement. “I’m more comfortable talking to a Christian than an atheist.”

Correctly or not, many of them say they believe that they are more accepted than they would be at secular schools.

“I like the fact that there’s faith, even if it’s not my faith, and I feel my faith is respected,” said Maha Haroon, a pre-med undergraduate at Creighton University in Omaha, who was born in Pakistan and grew up in the United States. “I don’t have to leave my faith at home when I come to school.”

And often, they are asked why they attend a Catholic school.

“I tell people the atmosphere is very warm and supportive,” Ms. Issa said. “I feel accepted here, and that’s what matters.”

In the end, should we care that the Cathols are doing something right? ARE they doing something right? It seems to me a contentious issue. On one hand, they're religious. Eww. On the other, the fact that they are embraced, respected, and seemingly live a more satisfied life in a religiously conservative setting....it's unsettling.

It means, for these kind of people, a perfect society is reached not by appealing to secular liberal values, but secular conservative values. This is a very important distinction I'm making here. And it rests on the fact that these Muslim women feel rejected by secular liberal values. This is very striking because it's the exact opposite of why these secular liberal values exist. On the other hand, what about secular conservative values? It's a concept that makes no sense. But it's clearly in play in these Catholic universities, is it not?

Can secular conservative values help the atheist movement? Aboukabary yallah, we can have a more comforting, respectable, conservative yet secular academic arena for more Muslims and slowly embrace them into atheism. The key is seeing that some cultures actually find liberal values offensive and inhospitable.

So, conservative, tight-assed theists find themselves more comfortable in the company of other conservative tight-assed theists than liberal atheists? Wow, that's not expected at all.

---

I feel I do. Because we are not intolerant and close-minded. We accept people, and as we are all fundamentally humanists, we want the well-being of society that only pluralism can provide.

"We"? The fact that you'd put all atheists and humanists in one category shows that you know nothing about "us".

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

So, conservative, tight-assed theists find themselves more comfortable in the company of other conservative tight-assed theists than liberal atheists? Wow, that's not expected at all.

If I had to choose between eradication/forced exile/forced conversion to atheism and pluralism, I would choose pluralism.

And I think most atheists would.

[genkaus]

If I had to choose between eradication/forced exile/forced conversion to atheism and pluralism, I would choose pluralism.

And I think most atheists would.

And if you simply had to choose between atheism and pluralism?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

If I had to choose between eradication/forced exile/forced conversion to atheism and pluralism, I would choose pluralism.

And I think most atheists would.

And if you simply had to choose between atheism and pluralism?

I don't. Atheism and pluralism are not mutually exclusive.

Pluralism by definition includes various faiths and non-faiths, including atheism.

Your question betrays your lack of understanding of the concepts at hand.

So an atheist can be a pluralist, and disagree with other beliefs, but respect their existence, the existence of their adherents and their rational or non-rational bases for believing.

[genkaus]

I don't. Atheism and pluralism are not mutually exclusive.

Pluralism by definition includes various faiths and non-faiths, including atheism.

Your question betrays your lack of understanding of the concepts at hand.

So an atheist can be a pluralist, and disagree with other beliefs, but respect their existence, the existence of their adherents and their rational or non-rational bases for believing.

Your response betrays your lack of understanding of the question at hand. Which is strange, considering you brought it up. You attempted to create a false dichotomy where forced atheism and pluralism are the only two options. The third option, which a lot of atheists actually choose, is disagreeing with other beliefs and not respecting them or their adherents, while at the same time not not trying to forcefully convert them either.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I don't. Atheism and pluralism are not mutually exclusive.

Pluralism by definition includes various faiths and non-faiths, including atheism.

Your question betrays your lack of understanding of the concepts at hand.

So an atheist can be a pluralist, and disagree with other beliefs, but respect their existence, the existence of their adherents and their rational or non-rational bases for believing.

Your response betrays your lack of understanding of the question at hand. Which is strange, considering you brought it up. You attempted to create a false dichotomy where forced atheism and pluralism are the only two options. The third option, which a lot of atheists actually choose, is disagreeing with other beliefs and not respecting them or their adherents, while at the same time not not trying to forcefully convert them either.

No.

The point in the OP was that secularism treated some people like garbage while flying the flag of tolerance, pluralism and humanism. At least, a significant portion of the world's culture felt that way. Women, Muslims, minorities. The original post called for an examination of the notion of "conservative secularism", where these kind of people might be accepted without feeling like secularism treats them like shit.

[genkaus]

No.

The point in the OP was that secularism treated some people like garbage while flying the flag of tolerance, pluralism and humanism. At least, a significant portion of the world's culture felt that way. Women, Muslims, minorities. The original post called for an examination of the notion of "conservative secularism", where these kind of people might be accepted without feeling like secularism treats them like shit.

No.

The point of the OP was how the religious foreigners felt more comfortable around religious domestics. That "secularism treats them like crap" was never brought up. And the argument given did not cover "a significant portion of world's culture", it covered deeply religious foreigners. It certainly did not cover three separate categories of Muslims, women and minorities, it covered one specific minority of Muslim women.

So, to summarize, you found an article about how foreign Muslim women feel more accepted and comfortable in religious environment like Catholic colleges and instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that this may be due to similar conservative values and less of a culture shock (something which was explicitly stated in the article), you thought that it was something wrong with secularism. The fact is, it is precisely due to the pluralist, secular environment, that they feel uncomfortable and rejected. Being in such an environment means coming across wildly differing ideologies and since they are not used to it, they are not comfortable with it. If they feel like they are being treated like shit, it's their problem.

And please try to remember the arguments you make.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

That was the point of the article. Are you confusing the article with the OP? It seems like you are, because the OP mentions the perceived intolerance of secularism quite explicitly.

Here's a link so you can look at it again, to catch what you missed: http://atheistforums.org/thread-14602-po...#pid331493

Here's a link to the article, which is quite different from the OP. It's not the same as the OP: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/educat...mbers.html

If you ask me, I think this touches on the matter of whether secularism is politicized to be liberal in nature. It seems as though it is.

[genkaus]

That was the point of the article. Are you confusing the article with the OP? It seems like you are, because the OP mentions the perceived intolerance of secularism quite explicitly.

Actually, the OP does not mention the "perceived intolerance of secularism" explicitly. It doesn't mention it at all. You do understand what the word "explicitly" means, don't you?

You can search your own post for the words "perceived" or "intolerance", but you won't find them. Though, I guess you'd just blame it on your inability to use the search function.

Here's a link so you can look at it again, to catch what you missed: http://atheistforums.org/thread-14602-po...#pid331493

Here's a link to the article, which is quite different from the OP. It's not the same as the OP: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/educat...mbers.html

If you ask me, I think this touches on the matter of whether secularism is politicized to be liberal in nature. It seems as though it is.

Take a look yourself. And then take a gander at my argument and try to find out where I'm wrong. In your own OP, the only "evidence" you presented was the article and explicitly stated that your argument "rests on the fact that these Muslim women feel rejected by secular liberal values". You gave neither the evidence, nor the argument for any other cultural minority feeling that way and yet later you tried to assert that your OP said that "significant portion of the world's culture felt that way".

What you did mention - explicitly - is that "some cultures actually find liberal values offensive and inhospitable". Implying that the problem lies with those cultures and not with secularism. And yet, later on, you tried to shoe-horn the idea of "intolerance of secularism".

As I said to someone before, if you're going to lie, atleast be a little smart about it.