If you go to the web page of the Humanisterna , you’ll find an appeal to forgo a Christmas gift in favour of a donation to support Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I support the right of free speech for Hirsi Ali although I find her style annoying and find much of her writing shoddy and unscholarly. (For the record, I find much more repugnant the islamic fundamentalists who threaten to kill her and were responsible for the Murder in Amsterdam . But, for a much more nuanced view of islam and women, see for instance, Laila Lalami’s columns in the Nation.)
I was curious to see why the Hirsi Ali appeal figures so prominently on the Humanisterna page. I looked further and found a link that takes you to Sam Harris’ website which hosts a “security trust” for Hirsi Ali. Here, under “Frequently Asked Questions”, Harris considers this one: “Aren’t there more important causes to support than the protection of Ayaan Hirsi Ali?” And as part of his answer, says:
it is difficult to imagine how the world might look after a single incident of [islamic] nuclear terrorism. I think it is safe to say, however, that if we do suffer even one such attack, global warming will seem the least of our concerns.
Apart from being exhibit A for a display of losing all sense of proportion, it’s also totally illogical – how does my support for Hirsi Ali diminish the alleged threat of nuclear terror?
This symptom of losing all sense of proportion seems also to afflict the Humanisterna in its activities in Sweden, with its repeated attacks in newspapers and other public forums on religion, specifically Christian in this case. In a country where the influence of the church is hardly evident in society or daily life, except in very benign forms, this obsession is hard to understand.
In particular, one wonders why this issue consumes all the energies of a society dedicated to the principles of Humanism. What is Humanism? To quote from the Humanisterna’s own website:
Humanism unites compassion and reason in an effort to create a better society, where we ourselves are responsible for what happens. Democracy and human rights are universal values and must exist for all people, regardless of where you live.
For example, perhaps the Humanisterna could take up the issue of demonisation of muslims as a whole illustrated in Pomland by Seamus Milne. Liberal stalwart author Martin Amis suggests “strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan”, preventing Muslims from travelling, and further down the road, deportation. I don’t follow the Swedish media closely, but there are sure signs that this exists here too (I found this: Islamophobia in Sweden). In neighbouring Denmark, a political party wins almost 25% of the vote based on it. So why don’t the Humanisterna bring reason and compassion to bear on this issue? Don’t they and Harris realise that by intemperate attacks on religion, they are actually strengthening the support base for terrorism?
I am all with the Humanisterna in looking forward to the day when enlightenment principles of reason would triumph over religious superstition, but I wonder if their methods are not counter-productive. Here is what one of the heroes of enlightenment principles had to say:
though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follows from the advance of science.
(Charles Darwin, declining a request from Edward Aveling to dedicate his book to Darwin.)
