What is an atheist doing at a religious freedom summit?

[sun rise]

This story is a nice contrast to a lot of what's going on.

What is an atheist doing at a religious freedom summit?

An atheist walked into an international religious freedom conference and picked up a microphone.

No, really, American Atheists president Nick Fish showed up — invited — to IRF Summit 2023 on Wednesday, and showed that he actually wasn’t out of place.

“Any nation that can take away your right to practice your religion can also force a religion onto me,” he said. “We’re all in this together. Every single person in this room, every group in this room, every denomination, every person on this stage, we’re in the shared struggle together, and it’s vital that we work to elevate FORB (freedom of religion or belief).”
...
What is, and isn’t, religious freedom?

One of the summit’s final panels considered what religious freedom is and what it is not, and it included Fish, the atheist leader.

“It is clearly something that’s pluralistic and not just a particular brand of secularism,” said BYU law professor Cole Durham. “It’s something that leaves open a real framework for us to live together, and it’s one of the things that, in my view, is one of the great modern keys of how we live together in our differences in peaceful ways. It protects the nonbelievers. It protects the believers. It protects the minority religions. It protects threatened majorities, as well. We’re very fortunate to have that.”
...
Fish and the other three panelists didn’t agree on everything, but the conversation never became argumentative.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The title of the article must be inspired by RF's perpetual question: "What is an atheist doing on a religious forum?"

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Day 2324 of reminding that atheist does not mean irreligious or not spiritual. But even then, anyone of any faith or lack thereof should be interested in the interactions between religious institutions and civil or social institutions.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I read through the entire linked article in the OP, reading about the concern for people who "get imprisoned or killed or harassed or just have difficulty with their lives because they are a person of faith." I'm grateful to any and all atheists who don't want to see that happening to anyone on account of their religion. By the same token, I would not want to see an atheist imprisoned, killed, or harassed because he or she does not follow the dominant religion in his/her country. That definition of "religious freedom" makes perfect sense -- for both the religious and the non-religious.

I also read in this article about religion in public spaces, with one of the speakers stating "I don’t think most atheists or humanists would favor an idea that there is no religion in public space. Public spaces are shared public spaces." I do believe that public spaces are shared public spaces, and I've never had a problem with seeing a nativity display or a chanukiah or any other benign religious symbol in a public space.

But I wonder what the participants at this conference had to say about people providing business services in the public sphere who believe that they should have the freedom to deny service to those whom they disapprove of, based on their religious convictions. Such as the often-seen denial of services to homosexuals. I didn't see this issue mentioned in the article.

Additionally... "A 14-year-old girl in Arizona was refused a refill on a drug she had been taking for years to manage her rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis just two days after the state’s new abortion law took effect, a Tucson TV station reported." Quoted from:

Walgreens, CVS withholding medications from people post-Roe

There are at least twenty conservative-led states that have warned CVS and Walgreens that they could face legal consequences if they sell abortion pills by mail in those states. Is this an example of government practicing "religious freedom" on behalf of those who oppose the use of abortion pills? Although I would be more inclined to think this an example of forcing one's religion on others.

If the conference touched on these issues, I would very much be interested to know what the consensus was. If anyone has that information, I'd really like to read it as a follow-up.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The title of the article must be inspired by RF's perpetual question: "What is an atheist doing on a religious forum?"

How does one learn to live comfortably among others without knowing something about who they are --- and teaching them who you are?

 

[lukethethird]

What is an atheist doing at a religious freedom summit?

Atheists rule.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What is an atheist doing at a religious freedom summit?

Atheists rule.

I am an atheist. I don't want to rule. I'm also a humanist, and as such, I want the best for all of my kind, all over this planet -- our only home in the universe.

As an atheist and humanist, it may be that I have a different viewpoint on how the best can be achieved for everyone -- different, I mean, from people who believe in heaven or hell, or altered states or Nirvana or whatever. But that doesn't mean I can't join in the quest to make our home safe and sustaining for all of us.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am an atheist. I don't want to rule. I'm also a humanist, and as such, I want the best for all of my kind, all over this planet -- our only home in the universe.

As an atheist and humanist, it may be that I have a different viewpoint on how the best can be achieved for everyone -- different, I mean, from people who believe in heaven or hell, or altered states or Nirvana or whatever. But that doesn't mean I can't join in the quest to make our home safe and sustaining for all of us.

I think that's well said.
I'm an atheist and NOT a humanist (although there is overlap in my worldview, I would say). But our variances in detail are less important than our overarching principles. People who want to allow freedom of belief for others, and want to work collegiately and in a respectful way are my comrades far more than 'people who don't believe in God'.

 

[Revoltingest]

Freedom for a religion
+ Freedom from a religion
= Religious freedom