Freedom of expression, the Law and the 'New Atheism'
In March 2010 Harry Taylor a philosophy tutor and militant atheist, was charged in court for the offense of religious harassment. He was caught dumping literature in the prayer room at Liverpool's John Lennon airport, including "sexually abusive and sexually unpleasant cartoons". Taylor defended his action saying that a prayer room in an airport named after John Lennon was an offense and that he was just spreading his own 'religion of reason'.
This court case brings up an issue that so many artists do not wish to confront, and yet it underpins our very role as communicators. Is Harry Taylor's act a crime, or is it valid expression and protest? Is it the cartoons that are on trial, or the act of leaving them in a place of spiritual contemplation � the kind of place where people of faith seek comfort? With the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, where the artist is still under police protection, the images were printed in a newspaper, not left in a mosque. However, I can imagine many artists who want to express their concerns about religion feeling that the law is turning against them.
A book entitled 'God and the New Atheism' by John F. Haught of Georgetown University examines the phenomenon of militant atheism in the wake of the writings of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. In his opinion there is little about such books that are new and they aren't atheist enough. The only aspect of the new atheism that is 'new' is their desire to ban religion � even though their atheism developed within a society that tolerated both religion and atheism. Haught taught a class entitled 'The problem with God' in which students were encouraged to read the works of Neitzche, Sartre and Camus. These were 'hard core' atheists who saw their beliefs as a dangerous adventure that the faint hearted could not follow them on. In comparison, Dawkins et al are really quite 'light weight', appealing to the status quo in the same way conservative Christians do. In fact the only revolutionaries around today would be the militant Islamicists who the new atheists use as examples of evil.
The new atheists also have no problem expressing anger towards religion, but have no good reason for this anger. Dawkins states that evolution has to be the reason for all phenomenon, physical or mental. He claims that evolution is amoral and unguided � but doesn't face up to the conclusion that if religion is the result of evolution, why get so angry about it? Haught demonstrates how Dawkins also struggles to explain why belief in God should be an evolutionary advantage.
In America a new campaign has been launched by atheists on university sites, to hand out pornography to people of religious faith. It is called the 'smut-for-smut' campaign. They claim to be offended by religious literature and are returning the offense by distributing sexually explicit material. Is this more of Harry Taylor's 'religion of reason', or have the new atheists just lost the plot? If the new atheists set themselves up as the pinnacle of intelligence, is this really intelligent behaviour? Or is it art?
This court case brings up an issue that so many artists do not wish to confront, and yet it underpins our very role as communicators. Is Harry Taylor's act a crime, or is it valid expression and protest? Is it the cartoons that are on trial, or the act of leaving them in a place of spiritual contemplation � the kind of place where people of faith seek comfort? With the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, where the artist is still under police protection, the images were printed in a newspaper, not left in a mosque. However, I can imagine many artists who want to express their concerns about religion feeling that the law is turning against them.
A book entitled 'God and the New Atheism' by John F. Haught of Georgetown University examines the phenomenon of militant atheism in the wake of the writings of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. In his opinion there is little about such books that are new and they aren't atheist enough. The only aspect of the new atheism that is 'new' is their desire to ban religion � even though their atheism developed within a society that tolerated both religion and atheism. Haught taught a class entitled 'The problem with God' in which students were encouraged to read the works of Neitzche, Sartre and Camus. These were 'hard core' atheists who saw their beliefs as a dangerous adventure that the faint hearted could not follow them on. In comparison, Dawkins et al are really quite 'light weight', appealing to the status quo in the same way conservative Christians do. In fact the only revolutionaries around today would be the militant Islamicists who the new atheists use as examples of evil.
The new atheists also have no problem expressing anger towards religion, but have no good reason for this anger. Dawkins states that evolution has to be the reason for all phenomenon, physical or mental. He claims that evolution is amoral and unguided � but doesn't face up to the conclusion that if religion is the result of evolution, why get so angry about it? Haught demonstrates how Dawkins also struggles to explain why belief in God should be an evolutionary advantage.
In America a new campaign has been launched by atheists on university sites, to hand out pornography to people of religious faith. It is called the 'smut-for-smut' campaign. They claim to be offended by religious literature and are returning the offense by distributing sexually explicit material. Is this more of Harry Taylor's 'religion of reason', or have the new atheists just lost the plot? If the new atheists set themselves up as the pinnacle of intelligence, is this really intelligent behaviour? Or is it art?