Synogenes.com

Have you ever been to a meal where the hosts want to say "grace" before you can start, in other words say a prayer. As an atheist, I would personally find it insulting that I am expected to participate in worshipping mythical beings and thank them for what I about to eat, and I would get angry that someone is expecting me to at least passively condone this practice.

From the host's point of view, they are simply expecting guests to respect their practices whether or not they are insulting to the intelligence of the guest and I find that offensive. The host is relying on the privileged position of religious practice as being beyond criticism and hence it would be considered socially improper to object.

But I do object to anyone expecting me to go along with religious practice.

Another example that can occur in workplaces is where a staff meal is restricted in the venues it can choose from because of the need to accommodate people who choose not to enter establishments where alcohol is consumed. We find good-natured people trying to be accommodating and giving into this social coercion. Some strict muslims will not themselves go into any establishment where alcohol is consumed, won't share a table with others who are drinking alcohol, and impose on themselves such strictures as to make their attendance at a works do, very difficult if not impossible. Those who give into this kind of coercion are pandering to irrationalism, allowing the irrational beliefs of an individual to direct the practice of the rational many. Our good nature, coupled with the sensitivity to offending irrational religionists, provides inadvertent support for their restricting practices.

Just as the Dawkins site urges people (especially in the US) to come OUT about atheism, this is one simple area where a rational statement can be made.

Next time a muslim says they can't go to a staff do because alcohol will be consumed, we should have the confidence to say, "it's a personal choice". If someone insists on saying prayers at a meal, we should have the courage to object and to leave the table rather than participate and invite others to do the same. We should insist that we are respected and not subjected to offence by the assumption that we will participate in irrational religious practices.

The same incidentally goes for funerals - in order to get buried in the accepted place, a graveyard, the bereaved are often inveigled into participating in christian services, almost as an additional requirement in getting someone interred. Since the ground is usually owned by the church, they can impose such restrictions - but we don't have to participate in the services, we don't have to sing the hymns, we don't have to mutter the prayers.

Coming out as an atheist means challenging these restrictions, pleasantly and politely, but firmly. Saying no to irrational practices will undoubtedly cause offence to the devout because they have lost the reason for doing what they do - perhaps many of them never knew what the reasons were. But we need to start questioning these simple passive ways in which religion is given inadvertent support, and brave the reaction which will undoubtedly follow.

Since so many people believe the words of the Qur'an to be the exact words of a supernatural power which must be obeyed, I thought I'd read the book myself. It's not for the faint-hearted.

It's not chronological so you don't get a sense of a passage, or history, or even a progression. There are 114 books (Suras) each of which repeats a substantial part of what has already been presented so there is a huge amount of repetition. That's important for regions of low literacy where much of the teaching takes the form of chanting - by learning to chant selected suras, it's possible to cover the essentials of the religion.

In each sura there are passages which repeat tales of previous prophets from Abraham onwards but these are interspersed with vitriolic attacks on non-believers and supporters of other faiths, and passionate inducements to follow the words of the one and only God. There are sections which explain the punishments for disbelievers - as an atheist I qualify for amputation of an alternate hand and foot if I spread my disbelief.

There is a huge quantity of medieval social advice such as what to do with slaves, wives of slaves, cattle, and other property including who can legitimately inherit women and children, what to do with orphans and how to inherit their property. There are strong messages to treat people fairly including ensuring that orphans end up with their inherited wealth - except that it will eventually go to the husbands of any females.

What comes over more than anything else though is that there is an almighty contest between those "chosen" by God to believe and worship, and those "chosen" by God to disbelieve (or believe something slightly different), the latter being condemned to eternal fire. Fire features very strongly in the pain and suffering to be meted out in bucketloads to those who have heard but choose not to believe. This god is all-forgiving but very violent and aggressive - proud of mass murder of entire populations who didn't believe, but supremely forgiving of those who accede to the threats and convert. Once having converted, it is not possible to change your mind without incurring death as the inevitable punishment for so-called "apostates".

In this way, critical thinking, hesitation in front of preaching, searching for evidence, in fact any expression of doubt, incurs the wrath of a jealous god. The book is assembled from oral testimony collected over 23 years but is nonetheless accepted as being the literal word of Allah, deviation from which guarantees eternal damnation - despite the ubiquitous declarations of Allah being the most forgiving and peaceful god, etc.

The treatment of Judaism is curious. There is collective guilt allotted to those who have killed a prophet with all manner of warnings about how devious, dishonest, scheming, and untrustworthy followers of Judaism will always be. Guilt allotted collectively, redemption impossible except by unquestioning adherence to the words of the book. Muslims are urged never to trust jews or christians and reference is made often to ancient battles as justification. This extends even to those who convert.

Of course, the tales told in the religious books based on the followers of Abraham all share a common lineage and Islam repeats the myths found in earlier books, such as the Adam and Eve story, Isaac, Noah, Lot, and so on. And the Torah, similar to the first five books of the christian old testament, is revered as the word of god by jews, and this book contains similar stories. Islam claims also to revere those old texts but with subtle differences. Islam regards Jesus as just another prophet with god, the supernatural power, as being indivisible so you can't have Jesus and the holy spirit sharing the table. Three is obviously a crowd, but so is two - we have here a very very jealous god.

So on the one hand, you have a message saying Islam respects all those religions, but then there is the hectoring message that belief in any of the others will send people to eternal hell. The symbolism of the religion is very similar to the others too: there is hell, angels, souls, sin, redemption, forgiveness, plenty of guilt, prophets of course, a final judgement day, and so on. And like all the others, it's wrapped up in a carrot and stick approach: pray and believe or sin and burn in hell forever.

Like the other faiths of the "Book", they all are all designed to exploit social psychology, to encourage or enforce obedience to principles that may have had a social purpose in medieval and primitive societies but the morality expressed in these books is in many cases offensive today. Amputations are not an acceptable, or even effective, way of addressing those who disagree with elements of a religious faith. This is recognised by the translator (you can't have an editor of the Qur'an because you can't change the word of God...) who apologises in the introduction for the direct nature of the threats of violence against non-believers urging readers to concentrate on other passages. Not convincing I'm afraid!

The Qur'an is an interesting historical document, no doubt, just like the Torah, the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, and so on. They tell us a lot about the societies that produced them and tried to live by the ethical rules contained in them but all ethics are historically determined and if we miss that point, we end up with the crude dogmatism we see from the Pope, the Imams, the Archbishops, and the other religious authorities.

I'd recommend people to read these books but be aware that you're in for a hectoring, abusive and bullying experience - you are to be damned unless you do what you are told. Put in the context of a primitive, often nomadic and agrarian society, you have the oral tradition designed to coerce and enforce adherence to socially useful practices mixed with peculiar dietary restrictions and denials. Viewed as a source for anthropology, these books can tell us a lot about those societies and an excellent companion is Albert Hourani's The History of the Arab Peoples which illustrates how well these ancient books helped enforce the social customs.

But let's be aware that these are books from one or two millenia ago - we are dealing with history here. Reading these books puts in stark relief what happens when entire populations are nowadays encouraged to enforce medieval or ancient practices based on suspicion and aggression with blind adherence to an oral tradition reporting the supposed words of a supernatural being. The books of course are riddled with contradictions and spawn parallel academic traditions of textual dissection designed to reinforce the political authority of religious rulers.

Reading these religious source books helps make sense of the blind irrationality of Bush, Rasmullah, Abedinejad, the Pope, and others. It explains better the aggression of militarist Israel with its apartheid policy towards Palestinians, and also some of the psychological triggers for suicide bombings.