Atheists don't grieve or morn apparently

[BlaqueKatt]

The Chaplin for the Harvard secular humanists, has attempted to join the "Boston interfaith initiative" to speak to the community about the bombings. He was told no. Secular Coalition for Massachusetts, same deal, "sorry no". Several groups, Harvard Humanists among them are holding their own vigils, due to total exclusion from any of the rest. Is this really what we should be doing? Showing bigotry like this, while giving what is apparently only "lip service" to coming together to put aside differences to mourn and grieve?

link

Compassion for the grieving and charity belong to humanity, and shouldn’t be leeched to make the faithful feel more special than any other person.

As one young woman in our community said to me, “It’s hard enough to deal with senseless grief, but when people write things like 'Why do people have to be so godless to want to kill innocent people?' it makes me feel like I’m not safe either, like we’re being singled out for prejudice.”

But for goodness' sake, must the nonreligious continue to be excluded from such gatherings? I’ve seen Humanists knock on the door recently at the interfaith celebrations of political conventions, or after tragedies like Hurricane Sandy or Newtown. We wanted to help and were turned away.

[crashhelmet]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. This isn't a regular vigil where people are mourning the victims. It's specifically billed as an "Interfaith" gathering. Atheists, by their very definition, have no place speaking at an event of any religious faith.

There are plenty of religious services held that Atheists don't try and force their way into. Baccalaureate services at schools, for instance. They have no need to participate in them. If it was a "regular" vigil then they'd have every right to speak there.

[Hyena Dandy]

So is atheism faith or isn't it?

Because faith is literally half of the word 'interfaith.'

[Kheldarson]

So is atheism faith or isn't it?

Because faith is literally half of the word 'interfaith.'

That's my question too.

I mean, I understand wanting to come together and mourn and such, but if you don't believe in a higher power or prayer, then why would you want to be a part of such a memorial anyway?

[Panacea]

I'm puzzled by his use of the words "congregation" and "chaplain." Both are religious terms. A congregation is a faith community that comes together for worship. A Chaplin is a faith leader.

Now I'm asking this in complete seriousness: what does an atheist "congregation" come together to do? What differentiates them from say, the Sierra Club?

How does their "chaplain" address the kinds of needs that would normally be dealt with by a spiritual leader?

An interfaith community is a community of believers coming together with the common purpose to satisfy spiritual distress caused by death. While I wouldn't suggest that atheists don't mourn (they do), I'm not sure what they would get out of a gathering with an express spiritual purpose.

On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if an opportunity hasn't been missed. Atheists are often condemned as a whole for the militant elements (eg Dawkins and his proponents), but not all atheists want to mock or confront the religious: they just want space to have their own beliefs and not have religion shoved down their throats. For atheists to want to come together to grieve side by side with the religious was an opportunity to acknowledge one another as human beings, albeit with different persepctives on life but a common humanity in loss.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'd say that as an atheist with Satanist leanings, that I probably mourn just as much or maybe even more than a religious person. They have their belief that they're gonna see their loved ones again.

[Andara Bledin]

But, really, this has nothing to do with mourning; that's kind of a red herring in this particular instance.

The fact is that the event the group tried to join was specifically religious in nature. Why would a group that is specifically non-religious try to become involved in a religious event and then be surprised when they were not accepted?

[Hyena Dandy]

I also find it a bit stupid to call it leeching compassion and grief to make religious people feel more special. As if religious people are holding these events just so they feel better than non-religious people. It's a very insulting view of religious people.

Again, it's a RELIGIOUS EVENT. If you're going to call atheism your religion, fine. But if you keep insisting that it's not a religion, and how you oppose religion, then don't be surprised that people are considering you not qualified to be at a religious gathering.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm puzzled by his use of the words "congregation" and "chaplain." Both are religious terms. A congregation is a faith community that comes together for worship. A Chaplin is a faith leader.

In fairness, a chaplain is not necessarily religious, they just need to represent a world view or philosophy. There are atheist chaplains at some universities and serving in the military of other countries. They serve the same role as a Christian chaplain would. You can have a chaplain of any faith or philosophy.

Now I'm asking this in complete seriousness: what does an atheist "congregation" come together to do? What differentiates them from say, the Sierra Club? How does their "chaplain" address the kinds of needs that would normally be dealt with by a spiritual leader?

They come together to support one another and discuss their world view just like everyone else I would imagine. A chaplain attends to the morale, emotional and religious/philosophical needs of their "flock" or whatever you want to call it. So unless you don't think atheists have emotions or doubts, then a chaplain does the same thing they normally would really.

On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if an opportunity hasn't been missed.

Honestly, that is my thought as well. They can exclude atheists on a technicality if they want. But in doing so they also exclude atheists who are grieving or mourning as well. It would seem to me that from the perspective of the major faiths being represented, including everyone rather than marginalizing a select few would be more in tune with the compassion you're suppose to represent. This could have been a powerful teaching moment for unity in the face of tragedy. Instead, it comes off a bit more like well, its a tragedy, but not enough of one to make us accept everybody.

[BlaqueKatt]

I also find it a bit stupid to call it leeching compassion and grief to make religious people feel more special. As if religious people are holding these events just so they feel better than non-religious people. It's a very insulting view of religious people.

What do you call excluding a group that doesn't believe what you do?

Sadly it's becoming apparent, that the bombing was done for that reason(opposing religious views).

Why did it have to become religious at all, why not a community gathering, as the Humanists* ARE doing(Humanists welcome anyone, they do not exclude, yet they are continuously excluded), why make something that excludes by design? And why keep up the exclusion when it's pointed out, and go so far as to DEFEND the discrimination and exclusion? Because it's just too hard to rename a gathering to prevent exclusion, the flyers were already printed and everything.

If this was a men only, women only, straight people only, white people only, community gathering everyone would be screaming like banshees about the intolerance and bigotry.

Why is religion a "get out of discrimination free" card?


*there are three branches of Humanism:
Renaissance humanism
Secular humanism
Religious humanism

didn't matter, still excluded-which blows the "half the word is faith" argument.

[Kheldarson]

What do you call excluding a group that doesn't believe what you do?

You call it a "blank" group meeting and establish that it's for members of that group. If I'm holding, say, an anime club meeting, I'd expect members of the club to show up and people who are looking to join or just enjoy anime. I wouldn't expect someone who openly dislikes anime to show up. That's not being discriminatory, that's just saying "this is what my group does; don't show up if you don't like it".

Why did it have to become religious at all, why not a community gathering, as the Humanists* ARE doing(Humanists welcome anyone, they do not exclude, yet they are continuously excluded), why make something that excludes by design?

Maybe not by design, but if your intent is to have a prayer service that reflects a baseline of belief, well, again, see above. I'm not going to necessarily invite people who believe completely opposite of what I do to help with prayer because that defeats the purpose. Hence why the label "interfaith" is somewhat important here. It designates this event as being a religious one. So the various types of Humanists notwithstanding (although your article doesn't tell me which one this group is anyway but the writer doesn't seem to be particularly religious), they do not seem to identify as a group that prays.

So, again, what is the purpose of inviting them in?

Granted, if this were a generic memorial (example: Boston Marathon Memorial, community memorial, Remembrance Day, what have you), then I'd be more inclined to say that no, they shouldn't have been excluded. But it still stands: why would a non-faith group want to be included in a faith based activity?

Why is religion a "get out of discrimination free" card?

Because religions are technically private groups that are based by a conscious decision to follow the beliefs and tenants of the group. They have the right to include or exclude anyone based on the tenants of their beliefs. If I, as a Catholic, decide to go to a synagogue, they would be within their rights to ask me to leave if they want. Would that be nice of them? No, but that's their right.

It would be the same if someone came into our anime club meeting without being a member. We could ask them to leave. Would it be nice? No, but that would be our right.

[Gravekeeper]

Sadly it's becoming apparent, that the bombing was done for that reason(opposing religious views).

No its not, there's nothing more than vague speculation at this point.

[Hyena Dandy]

Sadly it's becoming apparent, that the bombing was done for that reason(opposing religious views).

By apparent, you mean... That they're Muslims and therefore that's why they did it?

[smileyeagle1021]

I think the interfaith community missed out on an opportunity to extend an olive branch. Atheists do grieve, and just because they don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't respect those who do or have an interest in different religous beliefs (I am not Catholic, nor will I ever be, but I still find the Catholic Mass to be very interesting, and a fast and testimant meeting in Mormonism is fascinating)

[Kheldarson]

I think the interfaith community missed out on an opportunity to extend an olive branch. Atheists do grieve, and just because they don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't respect those who do or have an interest in different religous beliefs (I am not Catholic, nor will I ever be, but I still find the Catholic Mass to be very interesting, and a fast and testimant meeting in Mormonism is fascinating)

I will agree with this. It is a shame that they weren't more open, for whatever reasons they decided.

Side note: Smiley, have you ever been to a Tridentine mass? It's definitely an experience if you haven't.