A former president of the National Secular Society, now returned to the god-bothering fold, has written to the editor. Having been banned from the pages of The Freethinker, ex-ex-Christian Daniel O’Hara has started a series of email “round-robins” with the aim of propagating his new-found wisdom among his former, unbelieving colleagues.
The theme of this missive is the revolutionary democratic movement spearheaded by monks in Burma. Here is his argument:
Given the tendency of The Freethinker to attribute nothing but mendacity, bigotry and stupidity to ‘religionists’ of every stripe, it will clearly be hard-put to give any support to a movement for freedom spearheaded by religious activists. Logically, it should support the atheistic rulers of that country. But that would be pretty silly, given how repressive their actions clearly are. So it would seem that the Editor’s hands are tied. If he supported the monks and nuns, he would be siding with ‘religion’: if he supported the Government, he would be siding with tyranny.
Let us put to one side the tendentious and simplistic description of the Burmese totalitarian junta as “atheists”; let us also skip over the uncomfortable fact that the Theravada form of Buddhism is essentially atheistic. The central, outrageous thrust of O’Hara’s contention is this: that freethinkers are inevitably confused on the question of who to support in such a crisis because the liberal, democratic side in the dispute is nominally religious.
Nonsense.
Nobody I know, from personal acquaintance to published author, denies that good has been, can be, and is being done by religious people. The current situation in Burma is a case in point. What is open to question is whether or not they have to be religious in order to do good.
A few months ago Christopher Hitchens posed a challenge which to this day remains unmet. Perhaps Mr O’Hara will have better luck than the thousands who have tackled it so far?
Name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever.
It is an insult to the brave monks and nuns of Burma to suggest that without their faith they would have lacked the courage to face the bullets and batons of government troops. Humanity, solidarity, courage, and a hunger for justice are the necessary qualities to drive a democratic revolution - and those Burmese protestors possess them in spades. For that, they deserve the admiration and support of us all.
To exploit their predicament in an attempt to score a couple of desperate points against a worldview that threatens your own seems rather . . . unchristian?
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Touché! A very good reply to a rather silly attempt to discredit unbelievers.
I am sure that all people of good will are watching events in Burma with a mixture of alarm, compassion, admiration and hope.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:18 pm
As a Christian, Daniel O’Hara presumably believes that people should subscribe to the following biblical principle:
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right (1 Peter 13-14).
So from a biblical prespective, those poor monks and everyone else who does not submit to nasty regimes are actually going against the will of God!
So it would seem that Mr. O’Hara’s hands are tied. If he supported the monks and nuns, he would be going against the Bible: if he supported the Government, he would be siding with tyranny.